United States v. Alvarez, No. 14-50506 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to transportation of aliens in the United States illegally in exchange for the government’s promise to recommend a custodial term on the low end of the sentencing guideline range and a special assessment fee of $100.00. On appeal, defendant argues, among other things, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Paroline v. United States, established that restitution is a form of punishment and thus cannot be imposed as a condition of supervised release. The court concluded that restitution is not clearly a form of punishment and can be imposed as a condition of supervised release. Because Paroline did not establish that restitution is a punishment, the court concluded that defendant also cannot succeed on his argument that the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey by imposing restitution based on facts not found by a jury. In this case, the causal nexus between the crime of transporting aliens and the resulting damage to the car in which the aliens were being transported “is not too attenuated,” and restitution is appropriate. The court also concluded that the government did not violate the plea agreement and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s restitution order in a case in which the defendant pled guilty to knowingly transporting illegal aliens. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s decision in Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014), undermines this court’s holding in United States v. Batson, 608 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2010), that restitution can be imposed as a condition of supervised release. Because Paroline did not establish that restitution is a punishment, the defendant could not succeed on his argument that the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), by imposing restitution based on facts not found by a jury. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the company from whom the defendant rented a car that was damaged while a co-defendant was transporting the aliens therein was not a victim of the offense. The panel held that the causal nexus between the crime of transporting aliens and the resulting damage to the car is not too attenuated, and that restitution to the rental car company is appropriate. The panel held that the government did not breach the plea agreement by pursuing restitution even though the agreement did not mention it, where the government pursued UNITED STATES V. ALVAREZ 3 restitution subsequent to the defendant’s clear statement that he expected to have to pay it. The panel held that the district court’s failure to advise the defendant at his change of plea hearing that he may be subject to restitution was harmless.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.