U.S. v. Hendricks

In prosecution on mail fraud charge, Dist. Ct. had jurisdiction under Mandatory Victim Restitution Act to determine property interests as between defendant and his wife that would be potentially subject to $1,306,608.72 restitution order that was entered in defendant’s criminal case, even though defendant’s wife contended that such identification of property could only be decided in separate civil proceeding. Moreover, because defendant’s property was marital property, instant determination necessarily implicated wife’s property rights, and wife otherwise submitted to Dist. Ct.’s jurisdiction by entering appearance in defendant’s criminal case as interested party. Also, Ct. rejected wife’s contention that Dist. Ct. denied her due process rights by failing to give her opportunity to present her opinion that her divorce from defendant and her bankruptcy had certain effect on Dist. Ct.’s determination as to what property was susceptible to restitution order, since wife had failed to attend scheduled hearing for argument on govt.’s motion to determine her property rights. Remand, though, was required, where Dist. Ct. considered evidence of transactions/transfers of property that occurred after date of defendant’s criminal judgment, which was operative date for determination as to all property and rights to property of defendant that would be susceptible to restitution order.