Manrique v. United States
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 19, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- April 19, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Sentencing courts are required to impose restitution as part of the sentence for specified crimes. But the amount to be imposed is not always known at the time of sentencing. When that is the case, the court may enter an initial judgment imposing certain aspects of a defendant's sentence, such as a term of imprisonment, while deferring a determination of the amount of restitution until entry of a later, amended judgment. We must decide whether a single notice of appeal, filed between the initial judgment and the amended judgment, is sufficient to invoke appellate review of the later-determined restitution amount. We hold that it is not, at least where, as here, the Government objects to the defendant's failure to file a notice of appeal following the amended judgment. I After federal agents found more than 300 files containing child pornography on his computer, petitioner Marcelo Manrique pleaded guilty to possessing a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), the District Court was required to order petitioner to "make restitution to the victim of the offense." § 3663A(a)(1) ; see §§ 2259(a), (b)(2) ("An order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance…
Excerpt of a 19,627-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.