United States v. Lauersen
648 F.3d 115
2d Cir.2011Background
- Lauersen was delinquent (>30 days) and in default (>90 days) on restitution and a fine following his criminal conviction.
- The Attorney General notified Lauersen of the delinquency and default, leading to penalties of 10% (delinquent) and 15% (default) under 18 U.S.C. § 3612(g).
- The district court denied Lauersen's motion to waive these penalties, stating only the Attorney General could waive under § 3612(h).
- Lauersen appealed, challenging the district court's authority to waive penalties under § 3612.
- The court's analysis focused on who may waive penalties under § 3612 and the statutory interpretation of related provisions.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that only the Attorney General may waive delinquency and default penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who may waive delinquency/default penalties under §3612(g)-(h)? | Lauersen argues district court can waive penalties. | Government argues only AG may waive penalties. | AG may waive penalties; district court has no authority. |
| Does §3612(b)(1) authorize district courts to modify/remit delinquency penalties? | District court could modify/remit penalties. | No; penalties are automatic and not subject to modification by court. | No authority for district court to modify/remit delinquency penalties. |
| Does §3664(k) authorize waivers of delinquency/default penalties? | §3664(k) could adjust payment schedules, implying potential waivers. | §3664(k) only allows adjustment of restitution payment schedules, not waiver of penalties. | §3664(k) does not authorize waiving delinquency/default penalties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Church v. Geltzer, 463 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2006) (law-of-appeals rule about raising issues on appeal; not addressing new arguments)
- United States v. Turk, 626 F.3d 743 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for district court conclusions of law de novo)
- Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, 489 F.3d 542 (2d Cir. 2007) (de novo review of legal conclusions; statutory interpretation framework)
- United States v. Pescatore, 637 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2011) (delinquency and default penalties under §3612(g) and related provisions)
- Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647 (1978) (statutory interpretation issue cited regarding express terms and discretion)
- United States v. Roper, 462 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2006) (statutory construction of 3612-related provisions)