United States v. Ramiro Serrata, Jr.
679 F. App'x 337
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Serrata pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit a hate crime and causing bodily injury to K.G. based on race and sexual orientation; PSR recommended Guidelines and restitution items including medical bills and victim losses.
- At sentencing K.G. described severe physical and psychological injuries (including PTSD symptoms and increased substance abuse); Government requested $5,800 for student loans and $5,000 for future psychiatric care (estimate).
- The district court ordered $5,800 for the student loan and $5,000 for future psychiatric/psychological treatment (50 hours at $100/hour), adopted the PSR, and imposed statutory maximum prison terms.
- Serrata did not object to the PSR at sentencing; he appealed, raising for the first time (plain-error review) challenges to the district court’s authority to award $5,000, the amount, the immediate payment language, and alleged consideration of the $5,800 award when setting the $5,000 award.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed unpreserved issues for plain error and affirmed the restitution order in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to order restitution for future psychiatric care | Restitution statute allows costs of necessary psychiatric/psychological care following bodily injury | Serrata argued district court lacked authority to order future psychiatric restitution | Affirmed: courts may order restitution for calculable future medical/psych care under § 3663/3664; no plain error |
| Quantum of restitution ($5,000) | $5,000 (50 hrs × $100/hr) reasonably supported by PSR, victim statement, treatment evidence | Amount speculative and unsupported by record | Affirmed: amount supported by undisputed PSR and victim testimony; Government met burden |
| Payment schedule / “due now” language | Payment to begin immediately requires commencement of payments, not full lump sum; court may consider defendant’s finances for schedule | Immediate-payment language improperly demands full payment without ability-to-pay inquiry | Affirmed: “payment to begin immediately” means start payments in good faith; no plain error (PSR contained financial info) |
| Consideration of other restitution ($5,800 student loan) | Court merely entered separate restitution items sequentially, not offsetting or reducing the $5,000 award | Court improperly considered or offset $5,000 by the $5,800 award in violation of § 3664(f)(1)(B) | Affirmed: record does not show impermissible offset; even if considered, court did not reduce $5,000 because of $5,800 |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error standard for forfeited sentencing issues)
- Sharma v. United States, 703 F.3d 318 (restitution compensates victims for losses; cannot exceed actual loss)
- De Leon v. United States, 728 F.3d 500 (Government bears burden to prove restitution amount; record can suffice without detailed district-court analysis)
- Messina v. United States, 806 F.3d 55 (calculable future losses may be included in restitution)
- Pearson v. United States, 570 F.3d 480 (future psychiatric treatment restitution upheld in related statutory context)
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (restitution generally limited to losses resulting from the offense)
- Miller v. United States, 406 F.3d 323 (payment-schedule inquiry: court must consider defendant’s ability to pay when setting schedule)
- Zuniga v. United States, 720 F.3d 587 (PSR and reliable evidence may support restitution findings)
- Taylor v. United States, 582 F.3d 558 (court should not offset restitution by amounts paid to third parties)