USA v. Richard Bell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-20341 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JLD , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 03/13/2013 for Appellant Richard Bell [12-20341]

Case: 12-20341

Document: 00512149719

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/20/2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 12-20341
Summary Calendar

February 20, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RICHARD BELL,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-271-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Bell appeals an amended judgment ordering him to pay more than
$1 million in restitution for crimes of bank fraud and money laundering. He
contends that the district court lacked authority to conduct a restitution hearing
and to order restitution about three years after the expiration of the 90-day
period provided for doing so under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5).
If a sentencing court misses the 90-day deadline, it nonetheless retains the
power to order restitution when it has “made clear prior to the deadline’s
*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.

Case: 12-20341

Document: 00512149719

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/20/2013

No. 12-20341
expiration that it would order restitution, leaving open (for more than 90 days)
only the amount.” Dolan v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2533, 2536 (2010). At the
original sentencing hearing, Bell contended that he had made payments that
should lower the amount of restitution due. The district court thus delayed
setting the amount while making it clear that it would order Bell to pay
restitution of up to about $1.875 million when the correct amount could be
ascertained. Bell was not prejudiced by the delay, which was for his benefit, and
he shows nothing to distinguish his case from Dolan.1 The amended judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

This case is thus much different from United States v. Murray, 700 F.3d 241 (5th Cir.
2012), where the district judge at the original sentencing found restitution not applicable and
did not “leave a blank to be filled in later.” See id. at 245 n.22.

2