United States v. Charles Andrew Reece

62 F.3d 1426 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Andrew REECE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-50552. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 10, 1995. * Decided Aug. 3, 1995. 1 Before: FARRIS and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges; TASHIMA, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Charles Reece appeals the sentence imposed upon him under the Sentencing Guidelines and the restitution order imposed under the Victim Witness Protection Act ("VWPA"). We affirm. 4 * Reece first argues that the district court erred in ordering restitution because he has no ability to pay. 5 The district court derives its authority to order restitution from 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3663 and Sec. 3664, the Victim Witness Protection Act. Pursuant to section 3664(a), the district court in determining the proper restitution award must "consider," inter alia, "the financial resources of the defendant." This court has interpreted this…