Opinion ID: 220160
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Barkau's Sentencing

Text: In July 2010, the district court sentenced Barkau to 25 years of imprisonment (a downward variance from his Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months imprisonment). [4] With respect to restitution, the parties agreed to incorporate the record of Palmer's sentencing into Barkau's case. Noticing the government had appealed the restitution special condition in Palmer's case, the district court stated, my concern is that if, in fact, that's error to do it that way, then based on the record I would not enter any restitution order because I felt there was not sufficient evidence from the expert who had never examined the person, the victim in this case. The government objected to the new finding about insufficient evidence if that alternative restitution order had to be in place. Over the government's objection, the district court imposed a restitution order in Barkau's case in all relevant respects identical to Palmer's restitution order. The district court explained: As to the restitution order, my alternative judgment is that I would not impose restitution if, in fact, my order is not proper because I felt that there was insufficient evidence to show, in fact, what counseling was needed and that it was going to be pure speculation. So if this order is insufficient, the alternative order would be I would not impose any restitution solely because the record is not sufficient to convince me what is needed. The government appealed, and Barkau cross-appealed.