Court Opinion

ID: 9489359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:13:49.422293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:16.719897
License: Public Domain

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result:
Because of the peculiar factual setting in which this case comes to us, I vote to affirm. Whatever decision we make about restitution at this late date, Porter is going to end up owing close to $170,000 to her former employers and their insurance company, this despite the fact that she has been, and is, indigent. See United States v. Ahmad, 2 F.3d 245, 247 (7th Cir.1993).
On June 3, 1993, Porter was convicted of wire fraud following her guilty plea. She was sentenced to six months imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. She also was ordered to make restitution in the full amount of the defalcation, $169,043.21. She appealed the portion of the sentence dealing with restitution, but complied with the remainder of the sentence. As of the present time, she has completed her term of incarceration and approximately two years of supervised release.
On the prior appeal, both the panel majority and the concurring judge recognized the clearly established fact that Porter was indigent. See 41 F.3d at 70 and 72. Because of her indigent status, she has been represented throughout the entire litigation by a Federal Public Defender. The significance of such an appointment as an “indication” of indigency has been recognized in the Sentencing Guidelines. See Guidelines § 5E1.2, Application Note 3; United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175, 1188 (2d Cir.1993). The district court waived the payment of a fine because of Porter’s “inability to pay.” The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Porter was an able and conscientious lawyer who since has been appointed a Magistrate Judge. He was fully aware of his obligations as an officer of the court, particularly those of the nature imposed by Fed.R.CivJP. 11. It is not *71surprising, therefore, that all members of the prior panel accepted as factually accurate his references to Porter’s indigency in his endorsed submissions to the district court.
Indeed, in view of other evidence in the record, we could not in good conscience do otherwise. The probation officer’s presen-tence report submitted prior to the first sentencing stated, “The defendant has no assets.” Both the Government and the defendant reviewed and adopted this finding. See Guideline Chapter Six, Part A — Sentencing Procedures. Moreover, in the proceedings below that followed our remand, the Government acknowledged the fact that Porter was “presently indigent.” Finally, the undisputed fact that Porter is receiving monthly Social Service benefits and food stamps demonstrates the Social Service officials’ belief that she is in fact indigent.
I therefore respectfully but emphatically disagree with my colleagues’ assertion that the district court had a “grounded suspicion” that Porter is hiding funds and that “there is nothing wrong with ordering a criminal to divest herself of the fruit of her crime in order to make the victim whole.” Porter is a convicted criminal, but she also is an unfortunate woman who has suffered years of mistreatment. I have seen pictures of the bruises on her body and read the report of an examining psychiatrist. She deserves better treatment than being charged with further criminal wrongdoing based on an alleged “grounded suspicion.” I have sat on two appeals in this case and have found nothing to indicate that we erred in describing Porter as an “indigent defendant,” a description in which the Government consistently has concurred.
I also disagree with my colleagues’ conclusion that the panel majority on the prior appeal was not concerned about the harshness of the restitution order. As a member of the panel majority, I can state categorically that the panel was as troubled as was the concurring judge by the amount of the ordered restitution, $169,043.21. Our statement that “we concur in the district court’s expressed concern about the defendant’s ability to make restitution,” 41 F.3d at 69, was not an idle remark made simply in passing. Our difference with the concurring judge was only as to how the unhappy situation could be remedied. The panel majority feared that if the sentencing judge made only a modest restitution award and subsequently attempted to increase it because of a change in Porter’s financial circumstances, he would be confronted with a double jeopardy problem that would preclude the increase in sentence. We concluded that such increase might be made if the sentencing judge could make it clear in some way that the part of his sentence dealing with restitution was not a final order.
What the majority envisioned was “a modest restitution award that [could] be increased if the defendant’s financial condition should change for the better.” 41 F.3d at 71. We suggested several possible ways in which this might be accomplished and made specific reference to sections 250002 and 40113 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, codified as 18 U.S.C. § 2327(d) and § 2248(d) respectively, for the district judge’s consideration. We said:
We assume that Congress included the provisions of sections 2327(d) and 2248(d). in the 1994 Act to eliminate any claims of expected finality, thus permitting a sentencing court to make a modest restitution award that can be increased if the defendant’s financial condition should change for the better. Whether these provisions can be applied in the instant case, either by reference to the statutory terms or by incorporation of similar terms in the restitution order, are matters to be decided, in the first instance at least, by the district court.
41 F.3d at 71.
The district court’s response to our suggestion was somewhat different than what we would have liked. The restitution portion of his amended judgment reads as follows:
Restitution shall be paid:
in full immediately. Execution of this restitution judgment of $169,043.21 is stayed, provided that the defendant makes timely installments at the rate of $25 per month while on supervised re*72lease. The Court will entertain motions to modify (increase/decrease) the payment schedule if the defendant’s financial situation changes.
Unfortunately, this provision is both ambiguous and in possible violation of the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3663(f)(1). The stay provided therein is made contingent upon the defendant’s payment of restitution installments “while on supervised release.” However, the duration of the stay is not similarly limited to the period of supervised release. Moreover, the court placed no time limitation on its willingness to modify the defendant’s payment schedule.
Section 3663(f)(1) provides that the court “may require that [the] defendant make restitution under this section within a specified period or in specified installments.” A fair reading of this provision is that the court may fix the amount of the restitution and, having done so, may direct that the amount so detenxiined be paid all at once or in installments. In other words, the total amount to be paid is the same, regardless of how it is paid. See United States v. Johnson, 48 F.3d 806, 808 (4th Cir.1995); United States v. Dorsey, 27 F.3d 285, 291 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 949, 130 L.Ed.2d 892 (1995); United States v. Diamond, 969 F.2d 961, 969 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Stevens, 909 F.2d 431, 435 (11th Cir.1990). In the instant case, there is no relationship whatsoever between the $25 monthly installments and the total amount to be paid.
Despite the reservations above expressed, I am reluctant to return the matter to the district court for a second time. The period during which that court may require the defendant to make restitution is limited to five years from the date of the sentence or the end of the term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(f)(2); see also Diamond, 969 F.2d at 969; United States v. Joseph, 914 F.2d 780, 786 (6th Cir.1990); United States v. Bruchey, 810 F.2d 456, 459-60 (4th Cir.1987). A substantial portion of that five-year period already has expired. I would construe the district court’s order to require the $25 monthly payments to be continued, subject to possible adjustments based on changes in Porter’s financial condition, for the remainder of the five years. At the end of that time, Porter’s former employers and their bonding company, if they deem it worth their while, can secure a civilly enforceable judgment for the balance owing. Although the prospect of Porter spending the rest of her life with a nondischargeable judgment in excess of $165,000 hanging over her head is not something I view with pleasure, remanding the issue to the district court for the second time will not eliminate the prospect.