F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 9 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 04-4053
v. (District of Utah)
KIRK IRVING KOSKELLA, (D.C. No. 00-CR-594-JTG)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , HENRY , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. **
Kirk Irving Koskella, along with several other individuals whose cases are
currently pending in this court and the District of Utah, pled guilty to conspiring
to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
(2000), and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2000). The district court
ordered Koskella to individually pay $14,733,439.91 in restitution, the payment
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders; nevertheless, an order may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
schedule for which was to be determined by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the
United States Probation Office. Koskella appeals the court’s order requiring the
BOP to set the payment schedule and the court’s failure to order restitution jointly
and severally among all co-conspirators. The government concedes both issues.
Taking jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)
(2000), we find that the district court erred and thus reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
Koskella and his co-conspirators created programs designed or advertised
to reduce or eliminate federal income tax liabilities for anyone who invested
money into the programs. After being charged with conspiracy to defraud the IRS
and wire fraud, Koskella pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the prosecution.
Koskella’s cooperation with the government fell through, and as a result he
sought to obtain new counsel and withdraw his guilty plea. After a competency
hearing, at which the court deemed Koskella competent, the court denied his
motion to withdraw his plea.
Koskella received the statutory maximum of five years incarceration for
each crime and the court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. In
addition, the court ordered Koskella to pay $14,733,439.91 in restitution, but
delegated the responsibility of setting a payment schedule to the BOP and the
-2-
Probation Office. Furthermore, despite its intention that the restitution should be
shared jointly and severally, the court’s order was not so limited.
ANALYSIS
Ordinarily, we review a district court’s order of restitution de novo, but
because Koskella failed to object to the order of restitution, we review it for plain
error. United States v. Overholt , 307 F.3d 1231, 1253 (10th Cir. 2002).
1. Restitution Payment Schedule Must be Set by the District Court
We recently held that a district court cannot delegate the responsibility of
determining a payment schedule for restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664.
Overholt , 307 F.3d at 1256. Here, the district court’s order specifically states that
“Restitution shall be paid as determined by the Bureau of Prisons Inmate
Financial Responsibility Program while [Koskella is] incarcerated and the United
States Probation Office following [Koskella’s] release from imprisonment.”
Thus, the court did precisely what Overholt prohibits it from doing. What is
more, the government concedes in its brief that Overholt is controlling and
requires reversal. Therefore, we find that the district court committed plain error
when it delegated the scheduling of restitution payments.
2. Restitution Should Be Joint and Several Among Co-Conspirators
The conspiracy with which Koskella was charged involves several other
persons. Currently, there are three related cases pending, none of which has yet
-3-
reached the sentencing phase. If Koskella is ordered to pay full restitution and
other co-conspirators are also ordered to pay restitution, the victims may collect
more than their actual loss. This potential outcome contravenes the purpose of
restitution and exceeds the district court’s authority. See United States v.
Gottlieb , 140 F.3d 865, 873-74 (10th Cir. 1998). Moreover, not only does the
government support joint and several restitution, the record also shows that the
district court itself intended such a result. Koskella’s counsel stated that any
restitution order “would be joint and several with anyone else who would be
convicted of the fraud scheme in this case.” The court agreed. Therefore, on
remand the court should reconsider whether Koskella’s order of restitution should
be joint and several.
Based on the foregoing, we REVERSE and REMAND to the district court.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-4-