United States v. Scott Reisdorfer
731 F.3d 530
6th Cir.2013Background
- Church and Reisdorfer pled guilty to assaulting an inmate resulting in serious bodily harm at Big Sandy Federal Penitentiary.
- Church received a below-Guidelines sentence of 57 months after the district court denied his USSG § 5K2.10 motion.
- Reisdorfer was sentenced to 65 months and later faced a restitution order to be paid to the BOP.
- MacAnally, the victim, was severely injured, resulting in long-term brain damage and other serious injuries.
- Church contested the § 5K2.10 downward departure denial; Reisdorfer challenged the restitution order.
- The district court retained discretion on the departure and restitution amounts; the appellate court upheld both decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 5K2.10 denial is reviewable and correct | Church argues the court misapplied § 5K2.10 and added a duress-like requirement. | Reisdorfer argues the district court erred by denying a downward departure or misapplying guidelines. | Denial not reviewable as improper application; affirmed based on factors not met. |
| Whether restitution to the BOP is permissible under § 3663A | Reisdorfer contends BOP is not a victim and cannot receive restitution. | Government argues § 3663A(b)(2) allows restitution to third parties providing care, including non-monetary aid. | Third-party medical providers may be entitled to restitution; BOP justified as a recipient of costs under § 3663A(b)(2). |
| Whether § 3664(h) supports full restitution against a non-conspirator defendant | Reisdorfer contends § 3664(h) applies only to conspiracies; cannot impose full liability on him. | Government argues § 3664(h) permits joint and several liability when a defendant contributed to the loss. | Court adopts broad application: each defendant may be liable for full restitution if contributed to the loss. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Madden, 515 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2008) (review of downward-departure decisions limited when discretion is recognized)
- United States v. Crouch, 288 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 2002) (presumed discretion unless clear record shows otherwise)
- United States v. Puckett, 422 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2005) (review standards for sentencing departures)
- United States v. Rozin, 664 F.3d 1052 (6th Cir. 2012) (concept of contributing to the loss under restitution statute)
- United States v. Williams, 612 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy and restitution considerations in MVRA context)
- United States v. Bogart, 576 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2009) (joint and several liability for restitution in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Squirrel, 588 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 2009) (sufficient proof of contribution required for restitution)
- United States v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2005) (text supports third-party medical restitution under § 3663A(b)(2))
- United States v. Malpeso, 126 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1997) (scope of medical restitution statutes for bodily injury)
- Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (S. Ct. 2010) (proximate cause standard in damages and restitution context)