United States v. Oslund
453 F.3d 1048 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) authorizes a court to order restitution for a deceased victim's future lost income, provided that determining the amount does not unduly complicate or prolong the sentencing process.
Facts:
- On November 22, 1998, William Strelow, a Brinks Security guard, was delivering and retrieving money at a Target store in Bloomington, Minnesota.
- His partner, Mike Frost, remained in the armored truck and noticed a man, later identified as Richard Ashton Oslund, standing near the vehicle.
- As Strelow returned to the truck after exiting the store, Oslund approached him, shot him three times, and stole a bag containing $59,750 in cash.
- Strelow subsequently died from his gunshot wounds.
- Following a tip, the FBI began investigating Oslund, who was a former prison acquaintance of an informant, Zachary Koehler.
- While incarcerated together, Oslund confessed to Koehler, stating that during the robbery, 'things got out of control and I had to blast him.'
- The FBI also recorded hundreds of hours of conversations between Oslund and another informant, Thomas Russell, in which Oslund made numerous inculpatory statements about the robbery and murder.
- Two eyewitnesses who were in the Target parking lot at the time of the crime, Melissa Downey and Ryan McDonald, independently identified Oslund from photographic lineups.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Ashton Oslund was indicted on May 5, 2003, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on charges of robbery, murder with a firearm, and felon in possession of a firearm.
- Oslund filed a pretrial motion to suppress taped conversations, which the district court denied after a hearing.
- Following a two-week trial, a jury found Oslund guilty on all three counts on October 26, 2004.
- The district court sentenced Oslund to two consecutive life terms, a concurrent twenty-year term, and ordered him to pay $278,745 in restitution, which included an amount for the victim's future lost income.
- Oslund, the appellant, appealed his convictions and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, authorize a district court to include a deceased victim's future lost income in a restitution order?
Opinions:
Majority - Hansen, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) authorizes a district court to include a deceased victim's future lost income in a restitution order. The court reasoned that the plain language of the MVRA requires restitution for 'income lost by such victim as a result of such offense.' The statute does not define 'income' or distinguish between past and future income, leading to the conclusion that future income lost as a direct result of the crime is recoverable. However, the court noted that the MVRA provides an exception if 'determining complex issues of fact related to the...amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process.' A court has the discretion to decline to award future income if the calculation would be unduly burdensome, complicated, or speculative. In this case, since Oslund did not challenge the amount of future income—which had been calculated and committed to by the victim's employer, Brinks—but only the authority to award it at all, the calculation was not burdensome for the court. Therefore, the district court did not err in including the uncontested amount of future lost income in its restitution order.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent within the Eighth Circuit by clarifying that 'income lost' under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) encompasses future earnings. The court adopted a nuanced approach, balancing the goal of full victim compensation with judicial efficiency. By permitting such awards but granting district courts discretion to deny them if calculations are too complex, the ruling provides a flexible framework for future cases. This holding incentivizes defendants to contest the specific amount of claimed future losses rather than the principle itself, as an uncontested amount is more likely to be deemed non-burdensome and thus included in a restitution order.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Oslund