United States v. Martin Zaic
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3715
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Martin Zaic pled guilty to failure to pay legal child support (18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3)) and was sentenced Dec. 21, 2012 to 5 years probation and $43,622.40 restitution for arrearages.
- Victim (former wife) submitted a Declaration of Victim Losses and Victim Impact Statement 9 days before sentencing listing health-insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical bills; she noted some receipts were not yet in her possession.
- At sentencing the court awarded the arrearages, questioned whether insurance premiums/deductibles had been paid, and continued resolution of additional restitution issues.
- Government later conceded premiums were included in support order but sought restitution for uncovered medical bills; receipts dated 2007–May 2012 were obtained and a May 3, 2013 hearing was held (plaintiff did not attend).
- The district court awarded an additional $5,741.80 in restitution for medical expenses, relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) and finding Lewis had good cause for not including all receipts earlier.
- Zaic appealed on procedural grounds, arguing failure to comply with MVRA timing (10-day notice and 90-day final determination) deprived the court of authority to order the post-sentencing restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to comply with MVRA timing (10-day notice / 90-day determination) deprived the district court of authority to award post-sentencing restitution | Zaic: strict noncompliance with § 3664(d)(5) (notice and deadline) means court lacked power to add restitution | Government/rep: delays and imperfect notice do not strip court of authority where victim sought losses and defendant had notice; Dolan allows remedial orders after deadlines | Court affirmed: missed deadlines do not automatically deprive court of authority; restitution may be ordered post‑sentencing where no meaningful prejudice shown |
| Whether Zaic suffered prejudice sufficient to bar the restitution award | Zaic: untimely, new claims prejudiced him because they were untimely/abandoned | Zaic provided no concrete showing of prejudice to ability to dispute amounts; he did not contest reasonableness of amounts | Court: bare assertion of prejudice insufficient; defendant had notice of medical claims and opportunity to contest |
| Whether the victim’s later-submitted medical receipts fit § 3664(d)(5) “subsequently discovered losses” with good cause | Victim: she lacked receipts prior to sentencing and later obtained them from providers; thus losses were subsequently discovered with good cause | Zaic: procedural requirements (timing and notice) not met, so cannot be applied | Court: treated bills as subsequently discovered; good cause shown given receipts were not in victim’s possession earlier |
| Whether Dolan’s reasoning about the 90-day rule applies to the 10-day notice requirement | Zaic: Dolan addressed 90-day rule where court had indicated restitution would be ordered; here court did not clearly commit | Government: Dolan’s reasoning (statutory purpose, lack of specified consequence) applies equally to 10-day rule | Court: Dolan controls; MVRA’s timing provisions do not automatically divest court of power to order restitution post‑deadline where victims would otherwise be harmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (Supreme Court) (missed MVRA 90-day deadline does not deprive court of power to order restitution)
- United States v. Adetiloye, 716 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2013) (MVRA interpreted with victims’ interests central; public‑interest principle when officials miss deadlines)
- United States v. Balentine, 569 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2009) (MVRA’s purpose is to make victims whole; standards of review)
- United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2011) (missing 10-day deadline does not necessarily strip court of authority to order post-sentencing restitutionary relief)
- United States v. Qurashi, 634 F.3d 699 (2d Cir. 2011) (defendant’s bare assertion of prejudice insufficient to overturn restitution award)
- United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711 (Supreme Court) (public interest should not be prejudiced by negligence of officers)