780 F.3d 50
1st Cir.2015Background
- Defendant Anthony Raul Morán-Calderón pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for possessing and brandishing a firearm during a robbery of the Gran Meliá Hotel & Casino in Puerto Rico.
- The robbery yielded $85,291; Morán-Calderón’s admitted share was $10,000. Two co-defendants were similarly indicted.
- The district court sentenced Morán-Calderón to 108 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.
- The court ordered joint and several restitution for $85,291 under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) and declined to impose a fine due to defendant’s limited finances.
- The judgment did not set a specific restitution payment schedule; the minute entry stated payments would begin after sentence completion and permitted a payment plan to be agreed with probation or the Government.
- Morán-Calderón appealed, arguing (1) improper imposition of joint-and-several full restitution and (2) failure to set a restitution payment schedule; the plea waiver was unenforceable because the court exceeded the agreed sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose full joint-and-several restitution under MVRA | Government: MVRA permits full restitution to each victim and may make each defendant liable for full amount when multiple defendants contributed | Morán-Calderón: Court should apportion restitution based on his role and financial circumstances | Court: No error; district court may impose full joint-and-several liability and is not required to apportion |
| Requirement to set a restitution payment schedule at sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2) | Government: District court complied sufficiently by indicating post-release payments and possible plan with probation/Gov’t | Morán-Calderón: Court erred by delegating schedule-setting to probation/Gov’t and not specifying payment plan considering his finances | Court: Error; judge must exercise final authority and specify payment schedule — vacated and remanded for explicit reservation of authority |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sánchez-Maldonado, 737 F.3d 826 (1st Cir.) (acceptance of loss-amount figure supported by presentence report)
- United States v. Salas-Fernández, 620 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (court may impose joint-and-several restitution and is not required to apportion)
- United States v. Vaknin, 112 F.3d 579 (1st Cir.) (modicum of reliable evidence suffices for restitution award)
- United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.) (district court cannot delegate restitution payment-schedule authority to probation)
- United States v. McGlothlin, 249 F.3d 783 (8th Cir.) (same principle restricting delegation)
- United States v. Merric, 166 F.3d 406 (1st Cir.) (judge must retain final authority over payment schedule; remand required to make reservation explicit)