United States v. McDonald , 108 F. App'x 916 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 10, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10337
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER SHAUN MCDONALD, also known as
Chris McDonald,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CR-293-ALL-A
--------------------
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher Shaun McDonald pleaded guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to wire fraud, and he was sentenced to
nine months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, a
special assessment of $100, and restitution in the amount of
$18,846.65.
On appeal, McDonald argues that the district court erred
when it failed to consider his ability to pay when scheduling his
immediate payment of restitution. McDonald also asserts that the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-10337
-2-
court was not authorized to order the immediate payment of
restitution as a condition of supervised release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583 because his term of supervised release had not yet
commenced. However, the district court considered McDonald’s
assets, earnings, and financial obligations when it scheduled the
payment of restitution, and McDonald has not shown any error in
the court’s restitution order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2);
United States v. Howard, 220 F.3d 645, 647 (5th Cir. 2000);
United States v. Myers, 198 F.3d 160, 169 (5th Cir. 1999).
McDonald also argues that the district court erred in
ordering that he pay restitution to one victim for expenses
related to his nonmandatory attendance as an observer at court
proceedings. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act requires a
defendant to “reimburse the victim for lost income and necessary
child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during
participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense
or attendance at proceedings related to the offense.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3663A(b)(4). Under the plain language of the statute, the
district court did not err in awarding restitution for the
victim’s court attendance. See United States v. Morales-
Palacios, 369 F.3d 442, 446 (5th Cir. 2004); see also United
States v. Malpeso, 126 F.3d 92, 94-95 (2d Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.