United States v. Palmer

MEMORANDUM

Clay Inman Palmer appeals the restitution order imposed following his guilty plea to four counts of bank larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The legality of a restitution order is reviewed de novo, United States v. Baggett, *668 125 F.3d 1319, 1321 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

Palmer contends that the district court’s restitution order violates the dictates of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). 3 We disagree. Our review of the record shows that the district court considered Palmer’s ability to pay restitution, correctly set the amount of restitution as the amount of loss not recovered by the victim, and provided for a reasonable payment schedule for any balance remaining at the time of his release. This order complies with the requirements of the MVRA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3572 (a)(1) and (2) (requiring that payment of restitution be made immediately, or that any payment schedule require full payment in the shortest time reasonably possible); see also Baggett, 125 F.3d at 1322-23 (9th Cir.1997) (concluding that the district court need not make express factual findings of fact about appellant’s…