United States v. Bryan Serafini, 826 F.3d 146

On May 11, 2014, Brian Serafini was found intoxicated alone aboard a stolen 24-foot motor vessel in a restricted shipyard area after reporting a detailed story that someone had been thrown overboard. The Coast Guard and other agencies conducted an extensive search.
During booking Serafini said medication may have caused him to imagine another person; the search found no evidence of a person in the water. Coast Guard response costs totaled $117,913.
A federal grand jury indicted Serafini under 14 U.S.C. § 88(c) for knowingly and willfully communicating a false distress message.
Serafini pleaded guilty; at sentencing the district court imposed 14 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, and ordered restitution of $117,913 to the Coast Guard.
On appeal Serafini’s sole challenge was that § 88(c)(3) did not authorize criminal restitution—arguing the statute confines “liability for costs” to civil remedies and is ambiguous invoking the rule of lenity.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding § 88(c)(3) authorizes a criminal court to order restitution (liability for costs) as part of a criminal sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 14 U.S.C. § 88(c)(3) authorizes criminal restitution as part of sentencing	"Liable for all costs" denotes civil liability only; Congress’s use of separate civil penalty language implies (c)(3) was meant for civil recovery; absence of the word "restitution" shows no criminal remedy authorized	§ 88(c) is a criminal provision; "liable for all costs" is broad and not limited to civil proceedings; Congress explicitly limited (c)(2) to civil penalties, so omission in (c)(3) is intentional; ordering restitution furthers the statute’s purpose	The court held § 88(c)(3) permits restitution as part of a criminal sentence—"liable for all costs" includes criminal restitution; statute is unambiguous and lenity does not apply

United States v. Davis, 714 F.3d 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (restitution beyond statutory authority is illegal)
Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (1979) (words take ordinary meaning)
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (different wording in neighboring provisions implies deliberate choice)
United States v. Kumar, 750 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2014) (affirming Coast Guard restitution order under § 88)
United States v. James, 986 F.2d 441 (11th Cir. 1993) (Coast Guard recoverable costs of operation must be awarded)
United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (statutory interpretation begins and, where plain, ends with text)
Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103 (1990) (lenity requires more than a conceivable narrower reading)
Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) (lenity applies only when grievous ambiguity remains after traditional aids to construction)