Appeals of delayed restitution
Manrique v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the Eleventh Circuit's ruling: without an appeal notice from the restitution order, Manrique could not challenge the $4,500 award if the government objected.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-2 · April 19, 2017 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit that Marcelo Manrique could not challenge his $4,500 restitution order because he did not file a new notice of appeal after the amended judgment imposed restitution.
- Who it affects
- When a court sets restitution after sentencing, defendants must file an appeal notice from that later order; if the government objects, a defendant who did not file one cannot challenge the award.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
When the government objects, a defendant must file an appeal notice from the order imposing deferred restitution.
The amended judgment required Manrique to pay $4,500 in restitution.
The question arose because a criminal court set restitution after sentencing while Manrique's appeal of his sentence was underway.
Question presented
Should the Court grant certiorari to resolve the significant division among the circuits concerning the jurisdictional prerequisites for appealing a deferred restitution award made during the pendency of a timely appeal of a criminal judgment imposing sentence, a question left open by the Court's decision in Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 618 (2010)?
What the Court decided
Holding
A defendant wishing to appeal an order imposing restitution in a deferred restitution case must file a notice of appeal from that order. If he fails to do so and the Government objects, he may not challenge the restitution order on appeal. 579, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said a defendant must file an appeal notice from the order that sets restitution. If the defendant does not and the government objects, the defendant cannot challenge that order on appeal.
The vote
From the opinions
“Time limits, such as those stated in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4, and other limitations prescribed in a procedural rule, this Court has held, are claim-processing rules, not jurisdictional requirements.”
What's next
The Eleventh Circuit's ruling remains in place, and Manrique cannot challenge the $4,500 award in this appeal.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did Justice Ginsburg argue?
- She said appeal deadlines are rules for processing claims, not limits on a court's power; Justice Sotomayor agreed with her.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.