Mims: After probation sentence, district court maintains ancillary jurisdiction over a criminal case to enforce restitution order

In United States v. Mims, No. 22-13215 (J. Pryor, Branch, Grant), the Court held that a district court, even after a defendant completes her probation term, maintains ancillary jurisdiction over a criminal case to enforce unsatisfied restitution obligations that had been included in the defendant’s sentence.

Applying the plain error standard, the Court also held that the district court did not violate Mims’s due process rights when it entered an order enforcing her restitution obligations. Because the district court neither ordered further monetary penalties nor altered the amount of the restitution owed, the Court determined that the district court did not modify Mims’s restitution obligations. And even if a modification did occur, it was proper under the procedural rule authorizing a district court to enforce its restitution order by “any order reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with a restitution order.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 38(e)(2). Meanwhile, the Court determined that Mims (1) had sufficient notice that the government sought her compliance with the restitution order, but (2) rejected each opportunity to be heard on that matter and her ability to repay the debt.