United States v. Alvarez

Defendant pleaded guilty to transportation of aliens in the United States illegally in exchange for the government’s promise to recommend a custodial term on the low end of the sentencing guideline range and a special assessment fee of $100.00. On appeal, defendant argues, among other things, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Paroline v. United States, established that restitution is a form of punishment and thus cannot be imposed as a condition of supervised release. The court concluded that restitution is not clearly a form of punishment and can be imposed as a condition of supervised release. Because Paroline did not establish that restitution is a punishment, the court concluded that defendant also cannot succeed on his argument that the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey by imposing restitution based on facts not found by a jury. In this case, the causal nexus between the crime of transporting aliens and the resulting damage to the car in which the aliens were being transported “is not too attenuated,” and restitution is appropriate. The court also concluded that the government did not violate the plea agreement and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Alvarez" on Justia Law