United States v. Williams, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 741

Background

Defendant, a felon, sold three guns to a confidential informant using government-supplied "buy money" ($400 each; $1,200 total); the buy money was not recovered.
Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment plus 24 months' supervised release.
As a supervised-release condition the district court ordered repayment of the $1,200 buy money at a minimum of $50/month (repayable while on supervision).
Defendant appealed, arguing the buy-money repayment condition should be vacated on multiple grounds including that it is unauthorized restitution and does not serve legitimate penological aims.
The Seventh Circuit has previously approved buy-money repayment conditions (e.g., United States v. Daddato) and the panel considered whether to overrule that precedent.

Issues

Issue	Government's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court may order repayment of government "buy money" as a condition of supervised release	Such an order is a permissible condition of supervised release analogous to a fine or community-service payback and serves penological goals	The order is improper and should be vacated; it does not further rehabilitation and is not authorized	Permissible: repayment as a supervised-release condition is allowed and affirmed
Whether a buy-money repayment order is restitution (and thus unauthorized as to the government)	Repayment is not restitution to a victim but functions like a fine or community-service sanction	The order is effectively restitution and therefore unlawful because the government is not a "victim" under restitution statutes	Not restitution: government is not a restitution victim; order may be imposed as a supervisory condition akin to a fine
Whether the district court erred by failing to explain why it chose buy-money repayment over a fine given the defendant's asserted inability to pay	Government: judge need not recite detailed findings; lack of explanation here was harmless given amount, sentence, and precedent	Defendant: court should have justified imposing repayment instead of a fine given statutory fine procedures	Error in explanation was harmless; prior precedent and sentencing context uphold the condition
Whether multiple buys were improper so as to render repayment order invalid (investigative overreach)	Multiple buys are lawful investigative practice to secure evidence and may affect sentencing enhancements	Defendant: buying multiple guns increased buy-money amount and was unnecessary after the first sale	Multiple buys permissible; law enforcement not required to arrest after first buy; conduct lawful and contributed to guideline enhancement

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Daddato, 996 F.2d 903 (7th Cir. 1993) (upholding buy-money repayment as a supervised-release condition)
United States v. Cook, 406 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2005) (buy-money repayment is not restitution to the government)
United States v. Cottman, 142 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 1998) (repayment not restitution; may be treated like a fine or supervised-release condition)
United States v. Brooks, 114 F.3d 106 (7th Cir. 1997) (followed Daddato reasoning)
United States v. Anderson, 583 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2009) (further application of buy-money repayment precedent)
United States v. Gibbs, 578 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2009) (cited in support of supervised-release conditions)
Gall v. United States, 21 F.3d 107 (6th Cir. 1994) (discussed dissenting view on deprivation of liberty via repayment condition)
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) (investigative tactics: agents not required to arrest at first opportunity)
United States v. Limares, 269 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2001) (agents may continue investigations to secure additional evidence)
United States v. Turner, 998 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. 1993) (upholding guidelines' fine-related provisions)

Affirmed.