United States v. Gerald A. Coates Gerald Coates

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the manner and scheduling of restitution payments under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is a judicial function that cannot bé delegated in whole or in part
• recognizing that federal regulations allow the BOP to determine payment schedules for monetary penalties but finding the plain language of the MVRA vesting authority in the district courts trumps the regulations
• explaining that Constitution and applicable provision of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3664(f)(2), like its counterpart in the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663(f)(1) (1994
• acknowledging that federal regulations permit the Bureau of Prisons to make payment schedules for all monetary penalties but holding that the plain language of the MVRA overrides the regulations
• finding that district court failed to comply with the MVRA where “[i]t did not specify in the restitution order the manner in which, and schedule according to which, the restitution is to be made.” (internal quotations omitted)
• “Unlike the MVRA, the VWPA provides the district courts with -discretionary authority to schedule restitution payments.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).