United States v. Joshua Hester
708 F. App'x 441
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- In 2012 Joshua Hester and Marco Luis pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder money; Hester also pleaded guilty to drug offenses.
- The district court ordered restitution to JP Morgan Chase ($615,935) and Citigroup ($329,767) but did not set a payment schedule or consider defendants’ financial resources.
- On initial appeal this Court affirmed the Citigroup restitution amount and vacated the Chase award, remanding to recalculate Chase restitution.
- On remand a newly assigned district judge concluded no restitution was owed to Chase, enforced the Citigroup restitution, set a payment schedule after considering defendants’ finances, and directed the BOP to turn over Hester’s inmate trust account funds (less $500) toward restitution.
- Defendants appealed again, challenging the district court’s authority to set a payment schedule on remand and to require turnover of Hester’s inmate account funds.
- The panel affirmed the district court: the court properly set a restitution schedule under the MVRA and properly applied 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) to require application of Hester’s inmate funds toward restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court on remand could set a restitution payment schedule after earlier order lacked one | Government: court may enforce and cure omission by setting schedule consistent with MVRA | Luis/Hester: remand did not permit imposing a payment schedule or altering original order | Held: Yes; court may set schedule after considering defendants’ financial resources to enforce restitution (MVRA) |
| Whether BOP must turn over funds from Hester’s Inmate Trust Account toward restitution | Government: §3664(n) requires application of substantial inmate resources to restitution | Hester: turnover not permitted / account funds not subject to restitution obligation | Held: Yes; $12,500 in 2015 constituted substantial resources and must be applied to restitution (minus modest personal allowance) |
Key Cases Cited
- Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996) (federal courts may enforce prior monetary judgments)
- Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012) (MVRA requires specifying payment manner and schedule after considering defendant’s resources)
- United States v. Carter, 742 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to provide a payment schedule makes restitution immediately due)
- United States v. Luis, 765 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) (appellate decision affirming Citigroup restitution and remanding Chase calculation)
- United States v. Hester, [citation="584 F. App'x 805"] (9th Cir. 2014) (appellate disposition related to restitution issues)