United States v. Blackwell, Jr., No. 16-10287 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, convicted of armed bank robberies and a firearm offense, appealed pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to set aside enforcement of the fine and restitution ordered as part of his criminal judgment. Defendant's judgment was entered during the time when the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), 18 U.S.C. 3613(b), provided that a criminal defendant's liability to pay a fine expired either 20 years after the entry of judgment or upon the death of the defendant. The court agreed with the district court that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MPVRA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1227, and not the VWPA, applied in this case. The court explained that the MVRA's amendment merely increased the time period over which the government could collect those fines and restitution, and did not affect defendant's substantive rights. The court also rejected defendant's argument that the MVRA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying Curtis Blackwell, Jr.’s motion to set aside collection of a fine and restitution, which Blackwell was ordered to pay in a 1993 criminal judgment. Blackwell argued that under 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b)(1), his liability to pay the fine and restitution expired 20 years after his judgment was entered. At the time Blackwell’s judgment was entered, the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) provided that a criminal defendant’s liability to pay a fine expired either 20 years after the entry of judgment or upon the death of the defendant. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) amended the VWPA to provide that the liability to pay a fine or restitution shall terminate the later of 20 years from the entry of judgment or 20 years after the release from imprisonment of the defendant. The panel held that the MVRA, and not the VWPA, applied because the MVRA’s amendment merely increased the time period over which the government could collect the fines and restitution, and did not affect Blackwell’s substantive rights. The panel rejected as meritless the argument that application of the MVRA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. UNITED STATES V. BLACKWELL 3
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.