United States v. Jervis Davis
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8889
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Davis burglarized a Whitakers, NC residence and stole a handgun, ammunition, and jewelry.
- He fled the scene after a neighbor saw him, wrecked his car, and hid the firearm in the woods.
- Davis pled guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, a Title 18 offense (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)).
- Plea agreement required restitution to “any victim” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3663A but did not explicitly identify a victim or losses.
- PSR stated the homeowner sought a $500 insurance-deductible restitution and $185 for a window break, but the PSR concluded restitution was not compensable under Hughey due to lack of a victim associated with the count of conviction.
- District court initially waived restitution, then amended the judgment to order $685 restitution to the homeowner, over objections later raised on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the homeowner can be a restitution victim under §3663. | Davis argues the homeowner is not a victim of the offense of conviction. | The Government contends restitution may be awarded to a victim under §3663 or to an agreed third-party victim in the plea. | Homeowner not a §3663 victim; restitution not authorized. |
| Whether the plea agreement explicitly authorized restitution to non-victims. | Davis contends the plea did not explicitly authorize payment to the homeowner. | The Government relies on general restitution language in the plea but not explicit non-victim authorization. | No explicit agreement to pay restitution to non-victims; plea does not authorize. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1990) (restitution limited to losses caused by the offense’s conduct)
- United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 1996) (restitution cannot cover losses not tied to the offense’s conduct)
- United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2006) (plea agreement insufficient to bind to restitution absent explicit terms)
- United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2000) (plain error when restitution exceeds statutory authorization)
- United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2003) (focus on losses to victims caused by the offense)
- United States v. Randle, 324 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2003) (references to victims in plea agreements must be explicit)
- United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007) (plea agreements analyzed with contract-law standards; strict adherence to language)