Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266

Background

Marcelo Manrique pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography; under the MVRA the district court was required to order restitution, but the amount was not yet determined.
On June 24, 2014 the district court entered an initial judgment imposing imprisonment and supervised release but expressly deferred determination of restitution; an amended judgment would follow after the restitution amount was determined.
Manrique filed a single notice of appeal on July 8, 2014 from the June 24 judgment (before the restitution amount was set).
The district court held a restitution hearing on September 17, 2014 and entered an amended judgment on September 18, 2014 ordering $4,500 restitution to one victim; Manrique did not file a second notice of appeal from that amended judgment.
Manrique challenged the restitution amount in his appellate brief; the Government argued he forfeited the challenge by failing to file a notice of appeal from the amended judgment, and the Eleventh Circuit declined to consider the claim.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a defendant who wishes to appeal an order imposing restitution after deferred determination must file a notice of appeal from that amended judgment when the Government objects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a single notice of appeal filed after the initial judgment but before an amended judgment imposing restitution suffices to appeal the later restitution order	Manrique: one notice filed after the initial judgment should suffice and Rule 4(b)(2) makes it effective to appeal the amended judgment	Government: a notice of appeal from the amended judgment is required; failure to file forfeits appellate review when objected to	The single early notice did not suffice; a second notice from the amended restitution judgment is required when Government objects
Whether the notice-of-appeal timing requirement is jurisdictional or a claim-processing rule	Manrique: (implicitly) timing rules should not bar review here	Government: timely notice is jurisdictional and thus mandatory	Court: need not decide jurisdictional question; timing is at least a mandatory claim-processing rule that was timely raised by Government and thus unalterable
Whether Rule 4(b)(2) "springs forward" a prematurely filed notice to cover an amended restitution judgment entered after the notice	Manrique: Rule 4(b)(2) treats a notice filed after announcement but before entry as filed on entry, so it should apply	Government: Rule 4(b)(2) applies only where sentence was announced and the notice was filed after that announcement; here restitution had not been announced	Held: Rule 4(b)(2) does not apply because the district court deferred announcing restitution amount; notice filed before announcement cannot "spring forward" to the later amended judgment
Whether the failure to file a second notice is harmless error (Lemke)	Manrique: any defect should be excused as harmless under Lemke and the appellate rules	Government: Lemke was superseded by the Federal Rules; Rule 3(a)(2) does not permit overlooking a complete failure to file a notice	Held: Lemke does not control; courts cannot excuse complete failure to file a notice of appeal when opposing party timely raises the defect

Key Cases Cited

Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (recognizing that initial sentencing judgment and later restitution order are separately appealable)
Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (claim-processing rules can be unalterable if timely raised)
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on court of appeals)
FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269 (purpose of rules allowing premature notices to "spring forward")
Lemke v. United States, 346 U.S. 325 (premature notice of appeal excused under earlier rules; distinguished/superseded by current appellate rules)