Doe v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Nev. (In re Doe), 22-70098
| Docket Number | 22-70098 |
| Decision Date | 25 October 2022 |
| Citation | 51 F.4th 1023 |
| Parties | IN RE: Jane DOE, Jane Doe, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas, Respondent, Vonteak Alexander; United States of America, Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Paul G. Cassell (argued), Utah Appellate Project, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Rose M. Mukkhar and Norah C. Cunningham, Justice at Last Inc., San Carlos, California; for Petitioner.
Elizabeth O. White (argued), Appellate Chief and Assistant United States Attorney; Christopher Floyd Burton, Assistant United States Attorney, Jason M. Frierson, United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Reno, Nevada, for Real Party in Interest United States of America.
Amy B. Cleary (argued), Rene L. Valladares, and Wendi L. Overmyer, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender's Office, Las Vegas, Nevada; Christopher Oram, Law Office of Christopher R. Oram LTD, Las Vegas, Nevada, for Real Party in Interest Vonteak Alexander.
Before: Susan P. Graber, Michelle T. Friedland, and Lucy H. Koh, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Vonteak Alexander kidnapped Jane Doe, who was then 12 years old, and drove her from California to Las Vegas, Nevada, knowing that she would engage in prostitution. Jane Doe eventually alerted authorities that she was a missing juvenile, and police officers arrested Defendant. Facing five serious criminal charges, Defendant entered into a written plea agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, in exchange for the government's promise to drop the five charges, Defendant would plead guilty to two lesser crimes and would pay restitution to Jane Doe. The district court presided over several hearings aimed at determining the proper amount of restitution. After a new lawyer took over Defendant's representation, Defendant argued for the first time that the district court lacked statutory authority to order any restitution whatsoever. The district court reluctantly agreed with Defendant's legal argument. Accordingly, the court issued an order denying Jane Doe's request for restitution on the sole ground that the court lacked statutory authority to award it.
Jane Doe then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), a provision of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. We publish this opinion to reiterate what we held in two cases decided three decades ago: that 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) grants statutory authority to district courts to award restitution whenever a defendant agrees in a plea agreement to pay restitution. United States v. McAninch, 994 F.2d 1380, 1384 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993) ; United States v. Soderling, 970 F.2d 529, 534 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Because the district court has statutory authority to carry out the parties' intent that Defendant pay Jane Doe restitution, we grant the petition and instruct the district court to address, in the first instance, Defendant's evidentiary challenges and other arguments concerning the appropriate amount of restitution.
The government originally indicted Defendant on five counts that pertained to sex trafficking: (1) conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594 ; (2) sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 ; (3) conspiracy to transport for prostitution or other sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 ; (4) transportation for prostitution or other criminal activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 ; and (5) coercion and enticement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. The parties entered into plea negotiations, and the government later filed a criminal information charging Defendant with only two counts of interstate travel in aid of unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A). The criminal information does not specify the nature of the unlawful activity.
The government and Defendant then negotiated a binding plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A), (C). Defendant agreed to plead guilty to the two counts in the criminal information and to pay restitution. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss the indictment and to forgo bringing any additional charges stemming from the investigation. Defendant admitted that he drove Jane Doe from California to Las Vegas, Nevada, with the intent that Jane Doe engage in unlawful activity and that he then attempted to facilitate Jane Doe's engaging in unspecified unlawful activity. The parties agreed to be bound by any sentence within the range of 60 months to 96 months of imprisonment.
The plea agreement also required Defendant to pay restitution:
The Defendant acknowledges that the conduct to which he is entering a plea is gives [sic] rise to mandatory restitution to the victim(s). See 18 U.S.C. § 2259. The Defendant agrees that for the purpose of assessing such restitution, the Court may consider losses derived from the counts of conviction as well as losses caused from dismissed counts and uncharged conduct in which the Defendant has been involved. The Defendant agrees to pay the victim(s) the "full amount of the victim's losses" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3).
Section 2259(b)(3)1 defines the "full amount of the victim's losses" to include six categories of loss, including some costs of medical care and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The district court then presided over a plea colloquy. The government's lawyer summarized the terms of the plea agreement and stated, with respect to restitution, that Defendant "agrees to pay the victim the full amount of victim's losses as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3)." Defendant and his lawyer agreed with the summary. The court accepted Defendant's guilty plea and scheduled sentencing.
The district court later presided over a sentencing hearing. Defendant sought the low end of the plea agreement's range, 60 months; Jane Doe and the government sought the high end, 96 months; and the court sentenced Defendant to 96 months in prison. Consistent with a victim's statement that she had filed before sentencing, Jane Doe requested $15,000 in restitution. Defendant's lawyer requested that restitution be considered later, during a separate hearing. He elaborated that the government bore the burden of proof as to restitution and that, in his view, the government failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the restitution amount. The court agreed to defer a decision on restitution and later scheduled a hearing on restitution.2
On the day before the scheduled hearing, Defendant filed a motion pertaining to restitution. Defendant argued that Jane Doe had used the wrong legal formula when calculating restitution. In particular, 18 U.S.C. § 1593(b)(3) defines the full amount of the victim's losses as having "the same meaning as provided in section 2259(b)(3) and shall in addition include the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim's services or labor or the value of the victim's labor as guaranteed under the minimum wage and overtime guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act." (Emphasis added.) In calculating loss, Jane Doe used the formula supplied by § 1593(b)(3) but not found expressly in § 2259(b)(3). In his motion, Defendant asserted that § 1593(b)(3) "employs a unique restitution calculation that differs significantly from Sections 2259 and 3663." According to Defendant, the "unique loss provisions" of § 1593(b)(3) should not apply here. Defendant argued, instead, that "the Court should reject Jane Doe's proposed restitution calculation[ ] of $15,000 ... in favor of a restitution calculation consistent with 18 U.S.C. §§ 2259(c)(2) or 3663A(b)(2)."3 In short, Defendant asked the court to calculate loss pursuant to § 2259's definition, as the parties had agreed, and not pursuant to § 1593's definition.
At the scheduled hearing the next day, Defendant's lawyer reiterated that § 2259, not § 1593, provides the correct method for calculating restitution. The district court "agree[d] with [Defendant's lawyer] that 2259 is the statute that applies." Turning to Jane Doe's request for restitution, the district court specifically found that Defendant did not force Jane Doe into acts of prostitution; Defendant was not "her pimp." The court therefore denied restitution to the extent that it depended on that theory.
But the court was clear that other categories of restitution, as defined by § 2259, such as current and future medical and psychological expenses, were potentially available to Jane Doe. Because Defendant's motion was filed late on the day before the hearing, the district court allowed Jane Doe time to file a supplemental request for restitution. On a separate topic, Defendant's lawyer informed the court and the parties that he was moving out of state but that another lawyer from his office would represent Defendant going forward.
Jane Doe timely filed a supplemental request for restitution. Instead of the original $15,000, Jane Doe now requested approximately $1.5 million. Tracking the categories in § 2259(b)(3), she sought lost future earnings, future medical expenses, attorney's fees, transportation costs, and past lost wages.
About six months later, Defendant—now represented by a new lawyer— filed an opposition to restitution. Defendant argued for the first time that the district court "lacks authority to order restitution." According to Defendant, because he did not commit a crime under any statute that permits or mandates an order of restitution, the court lacked authority to order restitution.
The parties then appeared for a final hearing on restitution. Defendant's lawyer stated that "I recognize that [Defendant] in his plea agreement agreed to pay restitution." But, Defendant's lawyer continued, § 2259 does not "allow the Court to order restitution." In response to the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial