U.S. v. Robl

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering $94,031.41 restitution order on charge of knowingly releasing into air asbestos-containing material, even though Dist. Ct.’s action took place after completion of sentencing hearing. While defendant argued that any restitution issue had to be resolved at sentencing hearing, where, as here, restitution figure could have been resolved at that time, Supreme Ct., in Dolen, 560 U.S. 605, found that Dist. Ct. does not lose its jurisdiction to consider restitution issue, even though Dist. Ct. missed applicable 90-day period for doing so. Moreover, Dist. Ct. had valid basis to continue resolution of restitution issue, where proposed restitution amount was disputed by defendant, and where defendant claimed that there was insufficient information concerning purpose of customers’ checks. Also, Dist. Ct. could calculate restitution based upon checks that were payable to defendant or his company that referred to asbestos services, and Dist. Ct. did not err in canceling restitution hearing, even though defendant wanted to establish that customers’ checks were for services other than asbestos abatement, where defendant’s counsel indicated that she was unaware of evidence to support defendant’s claims.