850 F.3d 821
6th Cir.2017Background
- In Oct. 2014 Joshua Sizemore was speeding and intoxicated in a crash that killed passenger Ashley Trent and injured Sherice Mathes and Brent Clapper; he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
- Plea agreement and addendum fixed $173,451.43 restitution to Trent’s minor child (A.H.); other restitution amounts were contested.
- The PSR calculated total restitution of $230,839.37 (funeral, lost wages to A.H., and medical expenses for Mathes and Clapper).
- At sentencing the district court exercised its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3663 to order full restitution in that amount and denied offsets for payments made by Sizemore’s insurer (Farm Bureau).
- Sizemore appealed, arguing (1) statutory tension between § 3663 (discretion to award restitution) and § 3664 (requirement to order full restitution without considering defendant’s finances), and (2) the court should credit/offset amounts his insurer paid to victims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Sizemore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had authority to order restitution and how §§ 3663/3664 interact | VWPA permits restitution; court properly considered defendant’s finances when deciding whether to award restitution and when setting payment schedule | § 3663 is discretionary and conflicts with § 3664’s mandate to order full restitution without considering defendant’s finances; court misread its discretion | Court affirmed: no conflict — § 3663 governs decision whether to award (considering defendant’s finances); § 3664 governs amount (full victim losses) and payment schedule; district court acted within discretion |
| Whether court must consider defendant’s ability to pay when setting total restitution amount | Defendant’s finances are relevant to deciding whether to award restitution and to payment schedule, but not to the total amount owed to victims under § 3664 | Court erred by not reducing total restitution amount based on his finances and other obligations | Court held: amount must be the victims’ full losses without regard to defendant’s finances; trial court properly considered finances when deciding to award restitution and in setting payment schedule |
| Whether insurance settlements by Farm Bureau required offset against restitution under § 3664(j) | Defendant failed to prove the settlements compensated the same losses; burden on defendant to show double recovery | Insurance payments to victims should be credited against restitution to avoid double recovery | Court held: no abuse of discretion in denying offset — settlements were general (not tied to specific losses covered by restitution) and were made before restitution order; defendant failed to meet burden to show an offset was required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Church, 731 F.3d 530 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for restitution orders)
- United States v. Elson, 577 F.3d 713 (6th Cir.) (burden on defendant to prove offsets from civil recovery)
- United States v. Bearden, 274 F.3d 1031 (6th Cir.) (review standards for restitution)
- United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451 (6th Cir.) (courts need not make findings on defendant’s finances when setting restitution amount)
- United States v. Sheinbaum, 136 F.3d 443 (5th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to show offset)
- United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir.) (must reduce restitution by amounts victim later recovers in civil settlement to avoid double recovery)
- United States v. Bright, 353 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.) (payments made to medical providers, not received directly by victims, do not reduce defendant’s restitution)
- United States v. May, [citation="500 F. App'x 458"] (6th Cir.) (private settlement does not preclude court-ordered restitution)