Narrative Opinion Summary
In United States v. Johnson, the defendant appealed his conviction for armed bank robbery and related offenses, contending that the district court erred by not informing him of the non-withdrawal condition of his guilty plea if sentencing recommendations were rejected. This issue was raised for the first time on appeal, and the Ninth Circuit declined to consider it, citing a lack of exceptional circumstances. The appeal also challenged the restitution order of $83,464.50, arguing that the district court failed to inform Johnson of this obligation and did not consider his ability to pay, as mandated by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3664(a). While conceding a Rule 11(c)(1) violation, the government deemed the error harmless since the restitution was less than the potential fine. The court determined that the presentence investigation report provided sufficient financial insights, thus meeting statutory requirements without explicit findings. Consequently, the court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the order, denying Johnson's request for oral argument. The decision remains unpublished and non-citable under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appeal on Grounds of Rule 11 Violationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's claim that his conviction is invalid due to the district court's failure to inform him about non-withdrawal of a guilty plea was not considered because it was raised for the first time on appeal without demonstrating exceptional circumstances.
Reasoning: The court generally does not consider new issues on appeal unless exceptional circumstances exist or the issue is purely legal without prejudice to the opposing party.
Consideration of Defendant's Ability to Pay Restitution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3664(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's reliance on the presentence investigation report, which included the defendant's financial information, satisfied the requirement to consider the defendant's ability to pay restitution without needing explicit findings.
Reasoning: Johnson argued that the district court did not adequately consider his ability to pay restitution as required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3664(a)... The district court's reliance on the PSR was deemed sufficient to fulfill its obligations under Sec. 3664.
Harmless Error in Restitution Advisory under Rule 11(c)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the district court's failure to advise the defendant about the restitution requirement to be harmless since the defendant was informed of a potential fine, and the restitution amount was less than that fine.
Reasoning: The government conceded that the district court violated Rule 11(c)(1) by not advising Johnson about the restitution requirement but argued that this error was harmless.
Non-Precedential Dispositions under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision in this case is not precedential and should not be cited except under specific legal circumstances.
Reasoning: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 states that non-published dispositions are not precedential and should only be cited in specific legal contexts.