Manrique v. United States, USSC No. 15-7250, 2017 WL 1390728 (April 19, 2017), affirming United States v. Manrique, 618 Fed. App. 579 (11th Cir. 2016); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Lawyers handling federal criminal appeals, take note: This decision holds that, to challenge a deferred restitution order under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5), that is entered in an amended judgment issued after the defendant has filed a notice of appeal, the defendant must file a second notice of appeal from the amended judgment containing the restitution amount.
Unlike the Eleventh Circuit, however, the Court holds the requirement for a second notice of appeal is not jurisdictional; it is instead a “mandatory claim processing rule,” which means the respondent may forfeit an objection to a failure to file the notice of appeal if it waits too long to raise the objection.
The Court’s holding precludes an argument under Seventh Circuit precedent (United States v. Cantero, 995 F.2d 1407, 1408 n.1 (7th Cir. 1993)) that the first notice of appeal should be treated as a “premature” notice of appeal that “matures” upon entry of the amended judgment containing the restitution amount, thus obviating the need to file a second notice of appeal.
