Defendant's wire fraud sentence is affirmed, where: 1) the District Court's failure to comply with 18 U.S.C. section 3664(d)(5) did not deprive it of jurisdiction to enter its restitution order; and 2) a District Court may rely on a defendant's education and future earning potential in setting a restitution payment schedule.
Argued: June 18, 2009
Decided and Filed: August 14, 2009
Opinion by Judge Clay