United States v. Greg Carter
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2401
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Carter and co-defendants engaged in a scheme issuing fraudulent airline tickets, yielding over $1 million in ill-gotten gains.
- Forfeiture allegations listed assets including cash, safe deposit box contents, two Las Vegas homes, several vehicles, and various property.
- In 2006, Carter was sentenced to 70 months, 36 months supervised release, and restitution of $505,781.01 (joint and several liability).
- The district court treated the restitution as the liquidated value of forfeited assets, not the victim losses, and entered a Final Forfeiture Order.
- Post-sentencing, the government liquidated forfeited assets and applied proceeds toward restitution; Carter later argued the assets fully satisfied restitution.
- The district court later concluded that the forfeiture fulfilled the obligation, reversing the balance to $0 and prompting Carter’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to clarify restitution post-sentencing | Government: jurisdiction exists to enforce restitution and determine amounts owed | Carter: motion is improper for supervised-release modification; should appeal original judgment | Yes; district court had jurisdiction to account and adjust balance |
| Whether restitution was a condition of supervised release | Government: restitution was not a condition of supervised release | Carter: the restitution terms were tied to forfeiture and clearly satisfied by assets | No; restitution was not a term of supervised release; section 3583(e) cannot modify restitution terms |
| Whether the restitution balance was satisfied by forfeited assets | Government: crediting proceeds may satisfy restitution | Carter: potential shortfall should be reflected in balance | No; the court’s final interpretation found restitution fulfilled by forfeiture. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bright, 353 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2004) (restitution enforcement and credit when assets are liquidated for victims)
- United States v. Lomow, 266 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2001) (valuation of restitution when property is liquidated and credits to victims)
- Fenner v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 251 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2001) (sentencing intent governs retrospective parsing of sentence terms)
- United States v. Mays, 430 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2005) (district court enforcement remedies for restitution post-judgment)
- United States v. Morales, 328 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2003) (18 U.S.C. § 3583 cannot modify fines not a condition of supervised release)
- United States v. O’Brien, 789 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1986) (context for interpreting sentencing intent and post-judgment actions)