United States Sixth Circuit

Defendant's wire fraud sentence is affirmed, where: 1) the District Court's failure to comply with 18 U.S.C. section 3664(d)(5) did not deprive it of jurisdiction to enter its restitution order; and 2) a District Court may rely on a defendant's education and future earning potential in setting a restitution payment schedule.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/14/2009
• Published 08/14/2009

Judges

• Before:  KEITH, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Frederick D. Benton, Jr., Law Office, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.  Brenda S. Shoemaker, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Frederick D. Benton, Jr., Law Office, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.  Brenda S. Shoemaker, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.