United States v. Holsey Ellingburg, Jr.
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Vacated
The Eighth Circuit held that applying the MVRA’s extended restitution-collection period to Holsey Ellingburg, who committed his bank-robbery offense before the MVRA’s enactment, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Vacating the district court’s judgment, the court reasoned that the longer liability period and mandatory interest provisions increase the punishment attached to the crime.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether retroactively applying the MVRA’s extended restitution-collection period to crimes committed before the MVRA’s enactment violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Circuit Positions
Retroactive application of MVRA’s extended 20-years-after-release collection period DOES violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it increases punishment.
Retroactive application of MVRA’s extended collection period does NOT violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; the change is procedural and does not increase punishment.
Conflict Summary
Five circuits (2d, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th) hold that extending the restitution-collection period is merely procedural and does not increase punishment, so retroactive application is constitutional. The 3d Circuit and the 8th Circuit (in this opinion) conclude that the longer collection window increases the punishment by lengthening the period of liability and therefore violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.