United States v. Scott Fonseca
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10654
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Fonseca pleaded guilty to stealing 36 firearms from a licensed dealer under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u), 924(i)(1).
- Prior to this conviction, Fonseca was serving a 70-month Kansas sentence for possession and disposal of eight firearms.
- The PSR advised a guidelines range of 63–78 months; the government urged 70 months minus 50 months time served; Fonseca sought 13 months concurrent with the remaining Kansas sentence.
- The district court varied upward to 88 months, gave 50 months credit for Kansas time, and sentenced Fonseca to 38 months concurrent with the Kansas sentence plus $18,666.62 restitution.
- Fonseca appealed, and the court granted leave to address counsel withdrawal and various sentencing issues under an Anders filing.
- The district court’s restitution order was later challenged for calculating actual losses and adjustments for recovered firearms and custody status; remand was directed for further restitution proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Anders waiver and related issues are reviewable | Fonseca argues sentencing errors were misapplied and double jeopardy concerns | Fonseca's waiver forecloses review of most sentencing challenges | Waiver enforced; sentencing issues reviewed de novo only to extent outside waiver |
| Whether restitution amount complied with MVRA requirements | Restitution award matched actual loss; insurers’ payments justified | Restitution should reflect victims’ actual losses, considering recoveries and insurance | Plain error in amount; remand to determine proper reductions for recovered firearms and custody status |
| How to value returned firearms for restitution under MVRA | Value reflects insurer timing and values as of return | Value must reflect victim’s actual loss; insurer payments not controlling | Reduction must reflect 417 Guns’ value on return date, not insurer’s amount; remand for proper calculation |
| Whether government custody of recovered firearms affects restitution credit | Credit possible for property in government custody | Credit mechanism unclear; must be properly determined on remand | Remand for accounting of recovered firearms in custody and fair market value as returned |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 2010) (delivery of Anders challenges and waivers per de novo review)
- Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (Supreme Court 1998) (double jeopardy and consecutive offenses considerations)
- United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2005) (ineffective assistance issues outside appeal waiver but not reviewed on direct appeal)
- Robers v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1854 (Supreme Court 2014) (valuing returned property and credits against restitution under MVRA)
- United States v. McCracken, 487 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 2007) (government may credit restitution for property in custody when returned)
- United States v. Chalupnik, 514 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2008) (MVRA restitution based on actual loss; insurance impact considerations)
- United States v. Frazier, 651 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2011) (actual loss includes fair market value and burden on government to prove loss)