Manrique v. United States

PETITIONER: Marcelo Manrique
RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DOCKET NO.: 15-7250
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

GRANTED: Apr 25, 2016
ARGUED: Oct 11, 2016

Paul M. Rashkind - for petitioner
Allon Kedem - for respondent

Facts of the case

Marcelo Manrique was convicted in federal district court of possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to a life term of supervised release and mandatory restitution, though the final judgment did not include an amount for the restitution and stated that would be included in the amended judgment. Manrique filed his notice of appeal before the amended judgment was entered. When the amended judgment was entered while the appeal was pending, it included the details of the restitution award, and both parties subsequently included arguments regarding the challenge of the award in their briefs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the challenge to the restitution award because Manrique did not file a second notice of appeal regarding the amended judgment that included the amount of the restitution award.


Does an appellate court have jurisdiction over an appeal of a restitution award when the judgment that awarded the amount of restitution was entered after the notice of appeal was filed?

Media for Manrique v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 11, 2016 in Manrique v. United States

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

We'll hear argument next in Case No. 15-7250, Manrique v. United States. Mr. Rashkind.

Paul M. Rashkind:

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: A single notice of appeal perfects the criminal -- the appeal of a criminal judgment and sentence even if a part of that sentence is deferred. It doesn't matter whether the appeal is first noticed at the completion, after restitution is decided, or if the appeal is noticed at the outset, after the initial sentencing hearing.

In either event, that single notice of appeal perfects appeal of all issues that arise within that judgment and sentence when it is fully completed. We know this in part because of the Court's decision in Dolan.

In Dolan the Court struggled with the mechanics.

How was the Court going to evaluate the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act? What does it require a district court to do? And after struggling through those mechanics, the Court said that essentially the second document fills in an amount-related blank in the original judgment that made clear that restitution was applicable. It is clear that what happens second, the restitution part, is nothing more than a completion of the original judgment and sentence.

It is not a new judgment.

It is not a new sentence.

It is simply a completion, a fill-in-the-blanks as the Court has phrased it. We know not only from Dolan that this should be the case, but we know it also by looking at the criminal appellate rules as they relate to criminal cases.

If we go down one by one each of the sections of 4(b), each section leads to a single conclusion.

Only one notice of appeal is required.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

What about 3(c), which requires the notice of appeal to designate the judgment order or part thereof being appealed? So a notice of appeal can't designate an order that has not yet been made.

Paul M. Rashkind:

That's correct, yet it's not entirely correct.

3(c) says designate the judgment under review, which we've done here.

It was the initial judgment, the June 24 judgment, and that is the one and only that's under review.

At the time that it was entered, it was interim or incomplete, provisional, something that the Court has seen previously in cases like Corey and Firstier Mortgage, judgments that were not completely filled out by the time the notice of appeal was filed.

But we are only appealing the June 24 judgment as it was eventually completed by the later restitution proceeding. We argue -- and I think the rules and Dolan make clear, that there is but one notice of appeal -- but one judgment in these cases and it only has to be noticed the one time. If we look at the balance of --

Sonia Sotomayor:

How do you tell the difference between one judgment and an amended judgment? Are you suggesting you don't have to appeal from an amended judgment?

Paul M. Rashkind:

That's correct.

In the case of the deferred restitution, the Court made clear that there was not an additional judgment occurring, an amended judgment or an additional judgment. Again, to use the Court's words, the second document, if you will, is filling in the blanks of a judgment that was previously entered, leaving clear that those blanks were yet to be filled in.

I --

Sonia Sotomayor:

So what happens if your initial appeal ends before the restitution order is actually entered? Have you lost your right to appeal that second, that restitution order?

Paul M. Rashkind:

No, for the following reason, Your Honor.

As we indicated at the outset, there are two times to appeal, and this has been recognized by the courts below as well. There are two times that the defendant may appeal.

He may either appeal at the outset right after sentencing -- actually the more logical time to do it would be at the conclusion of the case.

There have been exceptions where defendants have wanted their appeals --

Anthony M. Kennedy:

At the outset right after sentencing?

Paul M. Rashkind:

Yes, Your Honor.

Anthony M. Kennedy:


Paul M. Rashkind:

Right after sentencing, or again after restitution.

So that option to appeal after the restitution is completed is always available.