Dan Epps

You mean like you feel like you couldn't do that if there's a circuit split as opposed to a case where it's just a one-off?

Although it's interesting.

I mean, this is an issue of kind of really diminishing importance, right?

I mean, how many people are there who still haven't satisfied their restitution requirements?

that were entered like more than 30 years ago.

Probably, it's probably a non-trivial amount, but, you know, fewer, no, no, that is a closed class, right?

No, no new defendants are falling into this class because the statute is now in force.

Similar issues could arise.

But this exact question is going to apply to fewer and fewer people every year, which is often a reason that, you know, one of the reasons that the court denies cert, right?

Diminishing importance.

Okay.

So, yeah, can I just, the features of the MVRA that tell us that it's plainly criminal.

It's labeled a penalty for an offense.

Court may order restitution only with respect to a criminal defendant, only after a conviction.

It's imposed during sentencing.

It's imposed with other criminal punishments like imprisonment and fines.

It's placed in Title 18, crimes and criminal procedure.

Lots and lots of clues.

Now, there is this other, you know, he alludes in the footnote to what you were talking about, that maybe there are situations where Congress didn't intend criminal punishment, but the statute may still be deemed criminal or penal if the party challenging the statute provides the clearest proof that the statutory scheme is so punitive, either in purpose or effect, as to negate the government's intention to deal civil.

So, you know, I don't I don't totally know what that would look like.