October Term 2009 · Docket 09-367
Does a 90-day restitution delay block a criminal appeal?
The dispute centers on whether a defendant can appeal a sentence before a court sets a specific restitution amount.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Karlan argued the Act sets two paths for district courts.
She stated restitution is a mandatory part of the sentence.
Mr. Heytens stated the government agrees no cases directly confront this issue.
He addressed the finality question raised by the Court.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-43
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act requires courts to order restitution for certain crimes. It allows courts 90 days to set the final amount. The core conflict involves the timing of this order relative to the appeal window.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 20, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants to file an appeal immediately after sentencing.
The government wants to delay the appeal until the restitution order is final.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the 90-day period does not suspend the appeal deadline.
The government argues the sentence is not final until the restitution order is entered.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if a 90-day delay prevents a defendant from appealing.
Justice Scalia asked if a future sentencing date prevents finality until then.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-43
Why it matters
This case defines when a criminal sentence becomes final. It determines if defendants must wait for restitution orders before appealing. It impacts the speed of criminal appeals nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-43
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.