United States v. Juvenile G.Z.

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Juvenile G.Z.

144 F.3d 1148, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10187, 1998 WL 254533

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 21, 1998

Docket97-4322

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 144 F.3d 1148 (United States v. Juvenile G.Z.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Juvenile G.Z., 144 F.3d 1148, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10187, 1998 WL 254533 (8th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The district court sentenced G.Z., a Native American juvenile, to probation and ordered restitution payments after G.Z. pleaded guilty to burglarizing an occupied dwelling. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 & 5032 (1994); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 22-32-1 (1988). On appeal, G.Z. contends the district court improperly ordered full restitution without examining G.Z.’s financial resources. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a) (Supp. II 1996). G.Z. does not dispute he pleaded guilty to a crime of violence, and in these circumstances, restitution is mandatory, not discretionary. See id. § 3663A(a)-(c); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a) (1997); United States v. Graham, 982 F.2d 315, 316 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (burglary of a dwelling is a crime of violence for sentence enhancement purposes). Thus, the district court was compelled to order full restitution without considering G.Z.’s economic circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (Supp. II 1996); United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1239, 1241 (8th Cir.1997). Although G.Z.’s plea agreement recommended the district court order restitution under § 3663, this section makes clear that discretionary restitution is not available for crimes of violence and § 3663A applies to these offenses. The district court applied the law correctly, and we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The district court sentenced G.Z., a Native American juvenile, to probation and ordered restitution payments after G.Z. pleaded guilty to burglarizing an occupied dwelling. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 & 5032 (1994); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 22-32-1 (1988). On appeal, G.Z. contends the district court improperly ordered full restitution without examining G.Z.’s financial resources. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a) (Supp. II 1996). G.Z. does not dispute he pleaded guilty to a crime of violence, and in these circumstances, restitution is mandatory, not discretionary. See id. § 3663A(a)-(c); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a) (1997); United States v. Graham, 982 F.2d 315, 316 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (burglary of a dwelling is a crime of violence for sentence enhancement purposes). Thus, the district court was compelled to order full restitution without considering G.Z.’s economic circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (Supp. II 1996); United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1239, 1241 (8th Cir.1997). Although G.Z.’s plea agreement recommended the district court order restitution under § 3663, this section makes clear that discretionary restitution is not available for crimes of violence and § 3663A applies to these offenses. The district court applied the law correctly, and we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F.3d 1148, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10187, 1998 WL 254533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-juvenile-gz-ca8-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack