United States v. Wyss
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4589
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Wyss pled guilty to false statements to TSA, admitting he worked full-time for DPS while also employed by TSA.
- Plea agreement and sentencing contemplated restitution to DPS in the amount of $188,548.92 under MVRA §3663A(a)(3).
- District court imposed three years of probation with mandatory restitution of $188,548.92, payable monthly, citing the plea agreement as binding.
- Defendant later sought belated credit against restitution based on DPS salary credits (leave time) and wages calculated by the DPS; the government opposed modification of the final restitution order.
- The district court ultimately reduced the restitution amount by $68,647.16, without finding entitlements to credits under state law, and terminated probation; the government appealed under 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
- The panel reversed, holding that §3563(c) cannot override the MVRA’s specific restitution-modification framework in §3664(o) and remanded for reinstatement of the original restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3563(c) authorizes belated restitution modification. | Wyss argues 3563(c) allows modification of probation conditions, including restitution. | Wyss contends district court may modify restitution under §3563(c) since it governs probation conditions. | No; §3563(c) cannot modify a final restitution order under MVRA. |
| Whether MVRA §3664(o) governs modification of restitution post-sentencing. | MVRA’s scheme does not permit modification absent listed exceptions. | Court should apply §3563(c) as a general modification authority. | §3664(o) controls; belated reduction not authorized absent enumerated exceptions. |
| Whether other provisions (Rule 35, etc.) permit belated reduction of restitution. | Rule 35 or other provisions could correct erroneous calculations. | No §3664(o) exceptions apply; Rule 35 has 14-day window and is insufficient here. | Rule 35 cannot validate belated, post-sentencing restitution reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rentz, 735 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2013) (statutory-interpretation de novo for probation-modification authority)
- United States v. Burke, 633 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2011) (specific statutory provisions prevail over general provisions)
- United States v. Grant, 715 F.3d 552 (4th Cir. 2013) (court skeptical of broad §3563(c) reach over MVRA restitution scheme)
- United States v. Hamburger, 414 F. Supp. 2d 219 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (district court cannot reduce restitution as probation modification absent §3664(o) exceptions)
- United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2003) (MVRA allows payment-manner adjustments, not reduction of principal amount)