United States Ninth Circuit

In a case in which defendant plead guilty to knowingly transporting illegal aliens, the District Court's restitution order is affirmed where: 1) the Supreme Court’s decision in Paroline v. US, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014), did not establish that restitution is a punishment, the defendant could not succeed on his argument that the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), by imposing restitution based on facts not found by a jury; 2) the causal nexus between the crime of transporting aliens and the resulting damage to the car is not too attenuated, and restitution to the rental car company is appropriate; and 3) the government did not breach the plea agreement by pursuing restitution even though the agreement did not mention it.

Appellate Information

• Published 2016/09/01

Judges

• CLIFTON

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel