The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Ramilo, 986 F.2d 333 (9th Cir. 1993):
Accordingly, we hold that at the time restitution is ordered the record must reflect some evidence the defendant may be able to pay restitution in the amount ordered in the future. In so holding, we acknowledge the "VWPA does not prohibit a sentencing court from imposing a restitutionary sentence on a defendant who is indigent at the time of sentencing." United States v. Ruffen, 780 F.2d 1493, 1495 (9th Cir.1986). The question here, however, is not whether the district court improperly imposed restitution on a presently indigent defendant, but whether the record indicates the district court considered the defendant's future ability to pay. We find it does not. 5
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.