Calkins

United States v. Calkins

Good Law
276 F. App'x 607
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 1, 2008No. 07-10031California346 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Federal probationer Russell Lee Calkins appeals his sentence of restitution. Cal-kins pleaded guilty to storing hazardous waste without a permit in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6928 (d)(2)(A), and was sentenced to five years of probation subject to the condition that he pay *608 $182,631.82 in restitution to the owner of the building he contaminated.

Calkins entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to the entry of restitution to compensate for the victims’ losses. He also expressly agreed to restitution compensating for the costs of any clean up that was conducted. He has thus waived any argument that the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution. He has not, however, waived his contention that the district court lacked legal authority to impose restitution as a condition of probation, see United States v. Phillips, 174 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir.1999), but that contention lacks merit.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”) gives the district court discretion to require the defendant to pay “restitution to the victim of the offense” as a “condition[ ] of the sentence of probation.” 18…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.