United States v. Moran-Calderon, 780 F.3d 50

Defendant Anthony Raul Morán-Calderón pleaded guilty to possessing and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for a robbery of the Gran Meliá Hotel & Casino in Río Grande, Puerto Rico.
The robbery yielded $85,291; Morán-Calderón's asserted share was $10,000. Two co-defendants were indicted alongside him.
The district court sentenced Morán-Calderón to 108 months imprisonment and five years supervised release, and ordered joint and several restitution for the full $85,291 under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.
The court declined to impose a fine based on the defendant’s impoverished financial condition and the sentencing minute entry stated restitution payments would begin after completion of the sentence and that a payment plan could be agreed with probation or the Government.
Morán-Calderón appealed, arguing (1) error in imposing joint and several liability for the full loss and (2) error in failing to set a restitution payment schedule at sentencing.
The First Circuit upheld the loss amount and joint-and-several restitution authority but vacated and remanded because the district court improperly delegated final authority to set the payment schedule to probation/the Government instead of fixing it or explicitly reserving judicial authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by ordering Morán-Calderón jointly and severally liable for full $85,291 restitution	Morán-Calderón contended the court should apportion restitution given his limited role and finances	Government supported full restitution to victim; MVRA permits joint-and-several liability when multiple defendants contribute to loss	Affirmed: court may order joint-and-several restitution; not required to apportion under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h)
Whether court erred by failing to specify restitution payment schedule at sentencing	Morán-Calderón argued the court must set payment schedule and not delegate that authority to probation or the Government	Government did not oppose remand to have judge retain/expressly reserve authority to set schedule	Vacated and remanded: judge must retain final authority over payment schedule; judgment should explicitly reserve authority

United States v. Sánchez-Maldonado, 737 F.3d 826 (1st Cir.) (modicum of reliable evidence suffices for restitution loss amount)
United States v. Salas-Fernández, 620 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (court not required to apportion restitution; no fixed formula required)
United States v. Vaknin, 112 F.3d 579 (1st Cir.) (lower standard of evidence for restitution findings)
United States v. Merric, 166 F.3d 406 (1st Cir.) (judge must retain final authority over restitution payment matters)
United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.) (district court may not delegate setting restitution schedule to probation)
United States v. McGlothlin, 249 F.3d 783 (8th Cir.) (same: judge must set payment terms)