Doe v. United States Dist. Court of Nev. (In re Doe)
| Decision Date | 25 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-70098 |
| Parties | In re: JANE DOE, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, Respondent, JANE DOE, Petitioner, VONTEAK ALEXANDER; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Argued and Submitted September 19, 2022 San Francisco, California
Amended January 18, 2023
Petition for Writ of Mandamus D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00072-RFB
Paul G. Cassell, Utah Appellate Project, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Rose M Mukhar and Norah C. Cunningham I, Justice at Last Inc, San Carlos, California; for Petitioner.
Christopher F. Burton and Robert L. Ellman; Assistant United States Attorneys; Elizabeth O. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Appellate Chief; Jason M. Frierson, United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney, Reno, Nevada; for Real Party in Interest United States of America.
Amy B. Cleary and Wendi L. Overmyer, Assistant Federal Public Defenders; Rene L. Valladares, Federal Public Defender; 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.
SUMMARY[*]
The panel filed (1) an order amending its opinion, denying a petition for panel rehearing, and denying on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc; and (2) an amended opinion granting Jane Doe's petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), a provision of the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
The defendant kidnapped Doe, then age twelve, and drove her from California to Nevada knowing that she would engage in prostitution. The defendant entered into a written plea agreement pursuant to which, in exchange for the government's promise to drop five serious criminal charges, he would plead guilty to two lesser crimes (interstate travel in aid of unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A)) and would pay Doe restitution. The district court nonetheless concluded that it lacked statutory authority to order the defendant to pay restitution to Doe.
Applying ordinary standards of review, rather than the mandamus standard set forth in Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977), the panel reviewed de novo the questions of law raised by the parties.
The panel published the opinion to reiterate what this court held in two cases decided three decades ago: 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.
The defendant did not dispute that § 3663(a)(3) authorizes district courts to award restitution as agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement. Rather, he argued that the district court lacked authority to award restitution under the plea agreement in this case. The defendant first argued that the restitution provision in the plea agreement unambiguously limited the district court's authority such that the court could award restitution only for those crimes that trigger mandatory restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259; and that because none of the defendant's conduct amounted to a crime that fell within that category, the district court lacked authority to award Doe restitution under the plain terms of the plea agreement. The defendant then argued that even if the plea agreement was ambiguous, this court should interpret that ambiguity in his favor and hold that the district court lacked authority to award restitution under the plea agreement. Rejecting both arguments, the panel wrote that the extrinsic evidence unambiguously demonstrated that the defendant agreed to pay restitution for Doe's loss, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3); and, accordingly, the rule that ambiguities are construed against the government did not apply.
The panel held that the district court's holding that it lacked statutory authority to order restitution was legal error. The panel granted the mandamus petition and instructed the district court to address, in the first instance, the defendant's evidentiary challenges and other arguments concerning the appropriate amount of restitution.
The opinion filed on October 25, 2022, and published at 51 F.4th 1023, is hereby amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. With the opinion so amended, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Friedland and Koh have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Graber has so recommended.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it.
The petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, Docket No. 33, are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be accepted.
When Jane Doe was twelve years old, Defendant Vonteak Alexander 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial