636 F. App'x 445
10th Cir.2016Background
- In 1993 Patrick Henry McGuire was convicted of aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, sentenced to 25 years, and ordered to pay $67,212 in restitution.
- The restitution order was entered under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) and was enforceable like a fine; at that time 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b) limited collection to 20 years from entry of judgment.
- In 1996 Congress enacted the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), recodifying enforcement provisions and amending 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b) to extend collection until the later of 20 years from judgment or 20 years after release from imprisonment.
- McGuire remained incarcerated (including a life sentence from another court) when MVRA was enacted and had made little progress paying restitution.
- In 2015 McGuire moved in district court to discharge his restitution obligation, arguing that applying the MVRA’s extended enforcement period to his pre-1996 restitution would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; the district court denied relief.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding MVRA’s application to McGuire permissible for two independent reasons: restitution is not punitive for Ex Post Facto purposes, and alternatively, extending an unexpired enforcement period does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying MVRA’s extended enforcement period to a restitution order imposed before MVRA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | McGuire: Retroactive application increases punishment and violates Ex Post Facto | Government: MVRA lawfully expanded enforcement period; applies to pre-MVRA orders whose collection period had not expired | Rejected McGuire’s claim; affirmed district court |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 1999) (restitution is remedial, not punitive, so Ex Post Facto Clause does not bar MVRA application)
- United States v. Wright, 930 F.2d 808 (10th Cir. 1991) (distinguishing fines as punishment from restitution as payment for actual loss)
- United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399 (10th Cir. 1992) (extending an unexpired statute of limitations does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) (discussing limits on retroactive extensions of criminal exposure but acknowledging precedent upholding extension of unexpired limitations periods)
- Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) (declining to consider inadequately presented arguments on appeal)