09-367 Dolan v. U.S.

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Restitution

A sentencing court that misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitution, if the court made clear prior to the deadline’s expiration that it would order restitution, leaving open only the amount.
Several considerations lead to this conclusion. First, where, as here, a statute “does not specify a consequence for noncompliance with” its “timing provisions,” “federal courts will not” ordinarily “impose their own coercive sanction.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U. S. 43, 63. A statute’s use of “shall” alone, see §3664(d)(5), does not necessarily bar judges from taking the action to which the missed deadline refers. Second, the statute places primary weight on, and emphasizes the importance of, imposing restitution upon those convicted of certain federal crimes. See §3663A. Third, the statute’s procedural provisions reinforce this substantive purpose. They reveal that the statute seeks speed primarily to help crime victims secure prompt restitution, not to provide defendants with certainty as to the amount of their liability. Fourth, to read the statute as depriving the sentencing court of the power to order restitution would harm the victims, who likely bear no responsibility for the deadline’s being missed and whom the statute seeks to benefit. That kind of harm to third parties provides a strong indication that Congress did not intend a missed deadline to work a forfeiture. See Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U. S. 253, 262. Fifth, the Court has interpreted similar statutes, such as the Bail Reform Act of 1984, similarly. See Montalvo-Murillo, supra, at 721. Sixth, the defendant normally can mitigate potential harm by telling the court that he fears the deadline will be, or just has been, missed, and the court will likely set a timely hearing or take other statutorily required action.
571 F. 3d 1022, affirmed.
Local effect: The opinion overrules governing Seventh Circuit precedent. U.S. v. Farr, 419 F.3d 621 (7th Cir.2005).

09-367 Dolan v. U.S.

Breyer, J.; Roberts, C.J., dissenting.