Manrique v. United States
The Court ruled that a man convicted of possessing child pornography could not challenge the $4,500 restitution amount he was ordered to pay, because he never filed a notice of appeal after the court set that amount.
The decision means that when a judge defers deciding restitution until later, a defendant must file a separate, second notice of appeal once that restitution order is issued, or risk losing the chance to challenge it.
How it got here: The trial court entered an initial sentencing judgment and later a separate restitution order; the Eleventh Circuit refused to review the restitution amount, and the defendant sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Federal agents found more than 300 child pornography files on Marcelo Manrique's computer, and he pleaded guilty. Because the law requires restitution to victims of that crime, but the exact amount was still unknown, the trial court sentenced him to prison first and set restitution later, at a separate hearing months afterward.
The question before the Court
When a judge puts off deciding how much restitution a defendant owes, does the notice of appeal filed after the prison sentence also cover the later restitution order?
The Court's answer
No — filing one notice of appeal after the prison sentence, before restitution is even set, is not enough to challenge the restitution amount later. The Court explained that a case where restitution is decided later actually produces two separate final judgments: one for the prison sentence and one for the restitution amount. Because Manrique's single notice of appeal was filed many months before the restitution order existed, it could not "reach forward" to cover that later order under the appellate rules.
Since the government objected to his failure to file a second notice, the appeals court was required to refuse to consider his restitution challenge. The Court also rejected his fallback argument that the missing filing should be excused as a harmless mistake, explaining that the modern appellate rules only allow courts to overlook minor filing defects — not a complete failure to file a notice of appeal at all.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Defendants sentenced under statutes requiring restitution — a common feature of federal crimes, especially child-exploitation and fraud cases — must now be careful to file a new notice of appeal after a restitution amount is finally set, even if they already appealed their prison sentence. Missing that second filing can permanently forfeit any challenge to the amount owed.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision. The Eleventh Circuit's judgment declining to consider Manrique's restitution challenge stands, and he cannot revisit the $4,500 restitution amount on appeal. Going forward, defendants in deferred-restitution cases must file a second, timely notice of appeal after the restitution amount is set if they want appellate review of that amount, whenever the government raises the point.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the notice-of-appeal requirement for restitution orders is a strict jurisdictional rule that courts must enforce even without an objection, or merely a rule that can be forfeited if the government fails to object in time. It resolved the case only on the narrower ground that the government here did object.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg argued that even if a second notice of appeal is ordinarily required, Manrique should not be barred here because the trial court failed to advise him of his right to appeal the restitution order as required by the rules, and the court clerk had already forwarded the amended judgment to the appeals court. She would have treated that clerk transmission as an adequate substitute for a second notice of appeal and let Manrique's restitution challenge proceed.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court looked to the statute governing criminal appeals and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, both of which assume a defendant files a notice of appeal only after the trial court has actually ruled on the issue being appealed.
- Because Manrique's single notice of appeal was filed many months before the restitution amount was ever decided, it could not have been seeking review of that later restitution ruling, and it was filed outside the time window the rules allow for appealing that ruling.
- The Court treated this notice requirement as at least a mandatory claim-processing rule — a procedural deadline that becomes absolutely binding once the opposing side properly objects to it, distinct from a jurisdictional rule that a court must enforce even without an objection.
- Relying on its earlier decision in Dolan v. United States (a 2010 case about restitution timing), the Court concluded that a deferred-restitution case produces two separate final, appealable judgments — one for the prison sentence, one for restitution — not a single merged judgment as Manrique argued.
- The Court also rejected Manrique's argument that his notice of appeal should 'spring forward' to cover the later restitution order under Rule 4(b)(2), because that rule only applies when a sentence has already been announced, and the trial court had not yet decided the restitution amount when Manrique filed his notice.
- Finally, the Court held that the failure to file any notice of appeal from the restitution order at all — as opposed to filing a flawed or defective one — is not the kind of error appellate courts have discretion to excuse as harmless.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Dolan v. United States (560 U. S. 605)
Relied on to confirm that deferred-restitution cases create two separate appealable judgments, not one.
Reaffirms Eberhart v. United States (546 U. S. 12)
Used to support treating the notice requirement as a mandatory, enforceable claim-processing rule.
Limits Lemke v. United States (346 U. S. 325)
Held not to apply anymore because later appellate rule changes superseded its harmless-error reasoning.