United States of America v. LEE BAKER, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEE BAKER, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30076
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00011-RRB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: WALLACE, WARDLAW, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
By separate order issued today, we direct the parties to file a notice advising
whether they wish to have an opportunity to settle on an appropriate restitution
amount, either on their own or through the assistance of a mediator. In the
FILED
JUN 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

meantime, the panel issues this partial memorandum disposition resolving one
issue presented on appeal.
Baker argues that the district court erred by ordering him to pay restitution to
CUMIS Insurance Society (“CUMIS”). “A restitution order is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion, provided that it is within the bounds of the statutory
framework.” United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 811 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Baker’s argument fails because the Mandatory Victim
Restoration Act of 1996 specifically addresses restitution for insurers by providing:
If a victim has received compensation from insurance or any other
source with respect to a loss, the court shall order that restitution be
paid to the person who provided or is obligated to provide the
compensation, but the restitution order shall provide that all restitution
of victims required by the order be paid to the victims before any
compensation is paid to such a provider of compensation.
18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(1). The statute is clear that the district court is required to
order that Baker pay CUMIS for part of the loss. The district court did not abuse
its discretion by ordering Baker to pay CUMIS.
We decline, for now, to reach the parties’ other issues.
The district court’s order is AFFIRMED IN PART. We retain jurisdiction
over this appeal.
2

-- 2 of 2 --