United States v. Hunter

Defendant pled guilty to federal charges stemming from a series of armed robberies. Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and ordered to pay restitution, as well as a special assessment. Both amounts were payable immediately under the district court's order. The sentencing order also provided that, during plaintiff's time in prison, he was to participate in the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) through which he would make payments to satisfy the restitution obligation. On appeal, appellant contended that the district court's delegation to the IFRP violated the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA)18 U.S.C. 3664(f)(2). Section 3664(f)(2) mandates that the court shall specify in the restitution order the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be paid. Because the filing requirement under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) is a non-jurisdictional, claim processing rule, the court proceeded to the merits of the appeal. The court concluded that in United States v. Baldwin, the court determined that restitution arrangements like the one at issue here do not constitute plain error. The court rejected Amicus' attempts to distinguish Baldwin and its claims that Baldwin is bad law. Accordingly, the court denied the appeal. View "United States v. Hunter" on Justia Law