United States v. Delano, 981 F.3d 1136

In 1993 Delano was convicted of armed bank robbery and the district court, under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), ordered $11,558 in restitution and imposed supervised release.
Delano began supervised release on December 5, 2012; in October 2017 his supervised release was revoked and he was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay the unpaid restitution balance ($5,159.59).
The 1993 VWPA incorporated §3613(b), which then made a court’s ability to collect fines/restitution expire 20 years after entry of judgment (i.e., Delano’s restitution would have expired in 2013).
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) (1996) amended §3613(b) to allow collection until the later of 20 years from judgment or 20 years after release from imprisonment, and included an explicit effective-date provision limiting application to defendants convicted on or after April 24, 1996.
The district court applied the MVRA at revocation, extending Delano’s repayment window; on appeal Delano (plain-error review) argued the MVRA’s effective-date language prevents applying the amendment to his 1993 conviction.
The Tenth Circuit reversed the restitution portion ($5,159.59), holding the MVRA’s effective-date language precludes applying the MVRA amendments to defendants convicted before April 24, 1996, so Delano’s restitution obligation had expired in 2013.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the MVRA amendments to collection periods apply to defendants convicted before April 24, 1996	Delano: MVRA’s effective-date provision bars applying the amendments to pre‑1996 convictions; restitution expired 20 years after judgment	Government: MVRA may govern enforcement at the time of revocation and does not violate ex post facto; prior Tenth Circuit authority suggested MVRA can apply post‑enactment	Held: MVRA is expressly prospective; cannot be applied to Delano (convicted 1993); restitution obligation expired in 2013
Whether the district court’s application of the MVRA was plain error	Delano: Court’s retroactive application contravened clear statutory language	Government: Error not plain because circuit ex post facto decisions might have given district court reason to apply MVRA	Held: Error was plain—Congress clearly limited MVRA’s prospective application
Whether the plain error affected substantial rights and warrants correction	Delano: Applying MVRA changed the outcome because his statutory liability had already terminated	Government: The fact Delano never paid makes the result harmless	Held: Error affected substantial rights and correction required to preserve statutory limits and judicial integrity

United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 1999) (addressed ex post facto challenge to applying MVRA-style restitution)
United States v. Hampshire, 95 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1996) (considered ex post facto implications of applying newer restitution rules)
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007) (describing VWPA discretionary restitution scheme)
United States v. Gordon, 480 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2007) (an unlawful restitution order is plain error requiring correction)
United States v. Brown, 316 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2003) (absence of circuit precedent does not preclude plain-error finding for clear statutory directives)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (framework for plain-error review)
Fernandez-Vargas v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 881 (10th Cir. 2005) (statutes are not retroactive unless Congress clearly intended)
United States v. Salas, 889 F.3d 681 (10th Cir. 2018) (plain-and-obvious error standard discussion)