United States v. Lillard, No. 16-30194 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting the government's motion to seize funds in defendant's inmate trust account under section 3664(n) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The funds were to be applied to defendant's outstanding restitution debt related to a prior conviction.
The panel held that defendant's action was not moot and that de novo review, rather than plain error review, was appropriate in this case. The panel also held that the language and statutory context of section 3664(n) favor Amicus's view that section 3664(n) does not apply to periods of pretrial detention, and that the rule of lenity resolves any remaining ambiguity in defendant's favor.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s order granting the government’s motion pursuant to § 3664(n) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act to seize funds in the defendant’s inmate trust account to be applied to the defendant’s outstanding restitution debt related to a prior conviction. The defendant received the funds in his inmate trust account while he was in pretrial detention awaiting trial on federal bank fraud charges. Section 3664(n) provides that if a person “receives substantial resources . . . during a period of incarceration, such person shall be required to apply the value of such resources to any restitution or fine still owed.” The panel held that the change in the defendant’s custodial sentence – he pled guilty and was sentenced to 196 months imprisonment – does not render the case moot; and that de novo rather than plain error review is appropriate. The panel held that the language and statutory context favor the view that the phrase “period of incarceration” in § 3664(n) does not include pretrial detention, and that the rule of lenity resolves any ambiguity in the defendant’s favor. Dissenting, Judge Bennett wrote that pretrial detention qualifies as “a period of incarceration” under § 3664(n), and UNITED STATES V. LILLARD 3 because the statutory language is unambiguous, the rule of lenity does not apply.
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.