UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES

v.

SUN GROWERS OF CA


99-3151a

D.C. Cir. 2000


*	*	*


Rogers, Circuit Judge: Following the reversal of its convic- tion under
18 U.S.C. s 201(c)(1)(A), Sun Growers of Califor- nia ("Sun-Diamond")1
received a refund of the principal  amount of the criminal fine that
it had paid as part of its  sentence, but its request for interest as
of the date of  payment was denied by the district court. Sun-Diamond 
contends that the district court erred by depositing the  original
fine in a non-interest bearing account, and, therefore,  Sun-Diamond
is entitled to recover constructive interest on  the principal amount
of the fine. The government responds  that the criminal fine was
required by statute to be deposited  in the Crime Victims Fund, 42
U.S.C. s 10601(b)(1), a non- interest bearing account, and that, even
if the district court  erred in its deposit of the fine, Sun-Diamond's
claim for  interest is barred by sovereign immunity. Because Sun-
Diamond's contention that its criminal fine was required to be 
deposited in an interest-bearing account is meritless, we do  not
reach the contention that it was entitled to recover  constructive
interest and, accordingly, we affirm the order  denying the payment of


I.


Sun-Diamond's sentence upon conviction of one count of  unlawful
gratuities, two counts of wire fraud, and five counts  of illegal
campaign contributions included a fine of  $1,500,000.00, a special
assessment of $1,225.00, and probation  for five years. At the
sentencing hearing, Sun-Diamond re- quested that its sentence be
stayed under Federal Rule  Criminal Procedure 38(c) and (d) pending
appeal, noting its  cooperation with the Department of Agriculture,
the distinc- tion between an individual seeking bond pending appeal




__________

n 1 Sun Growers of California was formerly known as Sun-  Diamond
Growers of California. Because the company's former  name was used
throughout the underlying litigation, we refer to  appellant as


an established corporation seeking to stay a fine, and the  possibility
of success on appeal. The government opposed a  stay of the fine,
viewing likelihood of success on appeal to be  "negligible" and noting
the absence of hardship because the  corporation already had advised
its shareholders in its 1996  Annual Report that money to pay the fine
had been set aside.  The district court denied the request to stay in
part, ordering  Sun-Diamond to "pay the fine within ten day[s], the
full fine  into the registry of the court." The written judgment
provid- ed that "[t]his fine shall be paid to Registry of the court 
within 10 days." Sun-Diamond paid the fine and special  assessment,
and the Clerk of the Court deposited this money  in the Crime Victims


Thereafter, this court reversed Sun-Diamond's gratuity  conviction,
finding that the district court applied an erroneous  standard for
conviction, and vacated the original sentence,  holding that the
district court erred in departing from the  Sentencing Guidelines in
imposing the fine. See United  States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 138 F.3d
961, 964-69, 974- 77 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The Supreme Court affirmed the
rever- sal of the gratuities conviction. See United States v. Sun-
Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 405-11 (1999). On remand,  the district
court vacated the original sentence and imposed a  new sentence on the
remaining counts of conviction, including  a fine of $36,000.00 and a
special assessment of $1,025.00.  Sun-Diamond filed a motion for a
refund of the difference  between the two monetary sentences
($1,464,000.00 in fines  and $200.00 for the special assessment),
which, with interest,  it calculated to be $1,666,610.49 in fines and
$228.25 for the  special assessment.


The district court ordered a refund of the difference in the  principal
amount of the fine ($1,464,000.00) and assessment  ($200.00), but
denied Sun-Diamond's request for interest.  Rejecting Sun-Diamond's
argument that Federal Rule of  Criminal Procedure 38(c) and U.S.
District Court Local Rule  67.1(b)(1) required the deposit of the
original fine in an  interest-bearing account, the district court
ruled that the fine  was correctly deposited in the Crime Victims
Fund. Noting  that sovereign immunity bars an award of interest by the


United States, the district court found no waiver of immunity  and
rejected the civil-forfeiture analogy and the constructive  trust
argument underlying Sun-Diamond's claim for an award  of constructive
interest.


II.


Sun-Diamond's contention that it is entitled to interest on  the
original fine2 is two-fold. It maintains first, that once the 
district court directed the criminal fine to be deposited to the 
Registry of the court, the fine was required to be deposited in  an
interest-bearing account pending appeal, and second, that  because the
district court erred in depositing the original fine  into a
non-interest bearing account, Sun-Diamond is entitled  to recover
"constructive interest" from the United States on  the original fine
as a result of its successful appeal. We hold  that the district court
did not err in depositing the criminal  fine in the Crime Victims Fund
and thus do not reach Sun  Diamond's constructive interest contention
and the govern- ment's sovereign immunity defense.


In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Con- trol Act of
1984. See Comprehensive Crime Control Act of  1984, Pub. L. No.
98-473, tit. II, 98 Stat. 1976 (1984). Includ- ed as part of that
omnibus legislation was the Victims of  Crime Act of 1984 ("Act"), see
Victims of Crime Act of 1984,  Pub. L. No. 98-473, tit. II, ch. XIV,
98 Stat. 2170 (codified as  amended at 42 U.S.C. ss 10601-10604 and
scattered sections  of 18 U.S.C. (1994)), which established the Crime
Victims  Fund ("Fund"). See 42 U.S.C. s 10601(a) (1994). The Fund, 
without fiscal year limitation, was established as a special  account
in the United States Treasury, and was designed to  finance payments
to state and federal victim compensation  and assistance programs. See
id. ss 10601-10603; United 




__________

n 2 Sun-Diamond's request for interest involves both the criminal  fine
and the special assessment that it paid as part of the original 
sentence. For simplicity, we refer only to the criminal fine; Sun-
Diamond does not contend that a special assessment is legally 
distinct from a criminal fine for the purposes of this appeal.


States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385, 398 (1990). The Act  included
various mechanisms to provide money to the Fund  and set a cap on the
Fund, with any excess in any year to be  deposited in the general fund
of the United States Treasury.  See id. s 10601.


The section of the Act establishing the Crime Victims Fund  provides,
with exceptions not applicable here, that "there  shall be deposited
in the Fund ... all fines that are collected  from persons convicted
of offenses against the United  States." Id. s 10601(b)(1) (emphasis
added). The provision  does not make any exceptions for criminal fines
that are  being appealed. The Administrative Office for United States 
Courts has developed criminal debt policies that direct the  district
court to deposit all criminal fines into the Fund. See  Guide to
Judiciary Policies and Procedures, Vol. I, ch. VII, pt.  H, at 2.3.5
(Dec. 1999). Therefore, the deposit of the original  fine into the
Crime Victims Fund was not only authorized by  law, but was also
mandated by s 10601(b)(1).3


Sun-Diamond's contention that this reading of the Victims  of Crime Act
conflicts with the district court's own order,  Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 38(c), D.C. District Court  Local Rule 67.1(b)(1),
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67  is groundless. The district
court's order that the criminal  fine be paid to "the registry of the
court" is consistent with  the deposit of the fine, by way of the
registry of the court, 




__________

n 3 Such case law as has arisen regarding the Crime Victims Fund 
mainly involves Origination Clause challenges to the deposit of 
special assessments in the Fund, see, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 
901 F.2d 1000, 1003 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Ashburn, 884 
F.2d 901, 903 (6th Cir. 1989), and Due Process Clause and Sentenc- ing
Guidelines challenges to the imposition of assessments to be 
deposited in the Fund for the costs of incarceration. See, e.g., 
United States v. Sellers, 42 F.3d 116, 119 (2d Cir. 1994); United 
States v. Spiropoulos, 976 F.2d 155, 166-67 (3d Cir. 1992). Al- though
addressing issues unrelated to Sun-Diamond's contentions,  none of the
cases cast doubt that s 10601 requires the deposit in  the Crime
Victims Fund of criminal fines paid to the district court  by federal
defendants. See Sellers, 42 F.3d at 119; Spiropoulos,  976 F.2d at


into the Crime Victims Fund.4 The portion of Rule 38(c) that 
Sun-Diamond relies on, which provides that "[t]he court may  require
the defendant pending appeal to deposit ... the fine  ... into the
registry of the district court," does not apply  because the district
court denied Sun-Diamond's motion to  stay execution of the fine.5
Even if the Rule 38(c) procedure  applies, depositing the fine "into
the registry of the district  court" is, again, consistent with the
district court's deposit of  the fine into the Crime Victims Fund.
Finally, Local Rule  67.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 are
inapplicable  because they apply only to civil actions.6 Because Sun-
Diamond's claim for interest hinges upon its position that the 
district court erred in depositing the original fine in the  


__________

n 4 Sun-Diamond's understanding that the phrase "registry of the 
court" is synonymous with the Court Registry Investment System 
("CRIS"), an interest bearing depository, is contrary to standard 
court practice to maintain a court registry that is separate and 
distinct from the CRIS. See D.C. Dist. Ct. Local Rule 67.1(b)(1); 
Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures, Vol. I, ch. VII, pt. I, at


5 Sun-Diamond elected not to appeal, and it cannot now ask the  court
to overturn that ruling.


6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 provides in relevant part: In an
action in which any part of the relief sought is a  judgment for a sum
of money ..., a party ... may deposit  with the court all or any part
of such sum or thing.... The  fund shall be deposited in an
interest-bearing instrument ap- proved by the court.


Fed. R. Civ. P. 47. Local Rule 67.1 provides in relevant part:


The following procedures shall govern deposits into the  registry of
the Court in all civil actions. ... (b) Investment of Registry Funds


(1) All funds deposited into the registry of the Court will  be placed
in some sort of interest bearing account. Unless  otherwise ordered,
the Court Registry Investment System  (CRIS) ... shall be the
investment mechanism authorized.


D.C. Dist. Ct. Loc. Civ. R. 67.1.


Crime Victims Fund, our holding to the contrary is disposi- tive.


Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.