Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing $3,000 restitution order under circumstances, where, at defendant's sentencing hearing, Dist. Ct. deferred its restitution decision and allowed parties to submit additional briefing on issue and then issued written decision at later time. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. had violated Rule 43(a)(3) by ordering restitution in his absence, Rule 43 did not apply, where, as here, restitution was imposed under Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, and where section 3664(d)(5) of said Act allowed Dist. Ct. to delay final determination of restitution order up to 90 days after sentencing, if, as here, losses were not attainable within 10 days of sentencing. Ct. rejected defendant's contention that Dist. Ct. was required to hold second sentencing hearing to announce its restitution decision.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Restitution