USA v. Bileen

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michael Kirby Bileen,
Defendant.
No. CR-24-08077-001-PCT-SHD
ORDER
On January 29, 2026, I sentenced Defendant Michael Kirby Bileen to 51 months in
prison after he pled guilty to Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury in violation of Title
18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(6). (Doc. 42.) At sentencing, Bileen objected to the
Government’s request for restitution on behalf of the victim, S.T.,1 arguing that the
Government had provided no evidence to support the restitution request. (Doc. 40.) I
deferred resolution of the issue and set a restitution hearing. (Id.) On April 21, 2026, I
held the hearing. (Doc. 48 (minute entry).) Following the hearing, the parties did not
submit briefing.2 For the reasons stated below, I will grant the restitution request as
modified at the restitution hearing.
1 I will refer to the victim by her initials to protect her privacy.
2 At the restitution hearing, I ordered the parties to submit simultaneous briefing as
to whether the nature of the restitution sought was recoverable under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.
Later, I determined that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3), a court may “order restitution
in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement.” Because
the plea agreement supplies authority under § 3663(a)(3) to award restitution, I need not
reach whether § 3663A would independently authorize restitution and thus advised the
parties that any supplemental briefing was optional. (Doc. 48.)
Case 3:24-cr-08077-SHD Document 57 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. BACKGROUND
On February 19, 2024, Bileen stabbed S.T. at her residence located on the Navajo
Nation Indian Reservation, resulting in a seven-centimeter laceration to S.T.’s face. (Doc.
37 at ¶¶ 6, 9 (Presentence Investigation Report or “PSR”).)3 After he was indicted, Bileen
pled guilty, (see Doc. 23), pursuant to a plea agreement that required him to pay restitution
pursuant to a provision stating, in relevant part:
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663 and/or 3663A, the defendant specifically agrees
to pay full restitution regardless of the resulting loss amount, but in no event
more than $250,000, to all victims directly or proximately harmed by the
defendant’s “relevant conduct,” including conduct pertaining to any
dismissed counts or uncharged conduct, as defined by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3,
regardless of whether such conduct constitutes an “offense” under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2259, 3663 or 3663A.
(Doc. 24 at 2–3 (Section 3(b)).)
In connection with Bileen’s January 29, 2026 sentencing, S.T. initially requested
$4,500 in restitution in the following amounts: (a) $1,500 for “expenses related to
traditional healing which involved the use of a medicine man”; and (b) $3,000 “to pay for
damage caused to her home by [Bileen] on the day of the assault” because he “punched
and kicked holes in her walls, he damaged her front door, and he damaged a window that
evening.” (PSR ¶¶ 14–15.) At the sentencing hearing, Bileen objected to restitution and
requested a restitution hearing, which I held on April 21, 2026.
At the restitution hearing, the Government and S.T. confirmed that they were no
longer requesting any restitution associated with traditional healing services and were
seeking a smaller amount of restitution for damage Bileen allegedly caused to S.T.’s home.
With the aid of photographs admitted into evidence, S.T. testified that during his assaultive
behavior on February 19, 2024, Bileen damaged: (i) a large section of wood wall panels in
her living room (Ex. 3, 4); (ii) another large section of wood wall panels in a separate area
of her home, (Ex. 5, 10); (iii) her front door, (Ex. 12); (iv) another section of wood wall
panels in her home, (Ex. 15); and (v) a window pane, (Ex. 16, 19). (Doc. 56 at 19:2–36:5
3 At his sentencing, Bileen did not object to any of the facts set forth in the PSR.
Case 3:24-cr-08077-SHD Document 57 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(hearing transcript).) S.T. testified that the cost of material needed to repair the damage
caused by Bileen totaled $886.23 based on a quote obtained from Home Depot and
comprised of the following:
• 1 replacement window $218.00
• 1 box of Grip-Rite drywall screws $6.97
• 3 sheathing boards 4 ft. x 8 ft. ($35.48 each) $106.44
• 6 gypsum boards 4 ft. x 8 ft. ($15.28 each) $91.68
• 24 boards 2 in. x 4 in. ($3.55 each) $85.20
• 1 Kwikset door knob and lock combo pack $113.94
• 1 front door $264.00
Total $886.23
(Doc. 56 at 36:6–41:22 (referring to Ex. 20).) S.T. confirmed that she did not seek
restitution for any labor associated with the repairs because her family had helped her
obtain the estimates of replacement material and would continue assisting her with repairs
to her home. (Id. at 41:7–12.)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3663, a court may “order restitution in any criminal case to the
extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3). Thus, “in
‘any’ criminal case, regardless of the crimes of conviction, and regardless of the
defendant’s conduct, a defendant may agree in a plea agreement to pay restitution to a
victim.” In re Doe, 57 F.4th 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2023). “In other words, even if the
defendant’s conduct, or the crimes to which a defendant pleads guilty, would not otherwise
give rise to mandatory restitution, a defendant may agree to pay restitution, and the district
court has authority to enforce that agreement by ordering restitution.” Id.
“Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the
court by the preponderance of the evidence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e). The government bears
the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim. Id.; see also
Case 3:24-cr-08077-SHD Document 57 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States v. Clayton, 108 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 1997). The Federal Rules of
Evidence do not apply to restitution proceedings. See United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d
594, 606 (9th Cir. 2012), abrogated on other grounds by Robers v. United States, 572 U.S.
639 (2014). Instead, “the district court may utilize only evidence that possesses sufficient
indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d
546, 557 (9th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up).
B. Restitution for Bileen’s Relevant Conduct
In construing plea agreements, courts must “begin ‘with the fundamental rule that
plea agreements are contractual in nature and are measured by contract law standards.’” In
re Doe, 57 F.4th at 673 (quoting United States v. Clark, 218 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.
2000)). Thus, if the terms of a plea agreement are clear, they must be applied. Id.
In this case, Section 3(b) of the plea agreement clearly sets forth Bileen’s obligation
to pay restitution to victims directly or proximately harmed by his “relevant conduct,” as
that term is defined in Section 1B1.3 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, including
“uncharged conduct.” (Doc. 24 at 2–3.) And as pertinent here, Section 1B1.3(a) defines
relevant conduct as “all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant . . . that occurred
during the commission of the offense of conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A).
S.T. testified that during the commission of the offense of conviction—the assault
resulting in her serious bodily injury in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and
113(a)(6)—Bileen damaged numerous parts of her home. Her testimony established that
the assault and the property damage were temporally and spatially intertwined—that the
damage occurred during the fight, including by Bileen falling into a panel, punching the
wall, and breaking the front door’s hinges by forcing his way in. (See Doc. 56 at 19:2–
36:5.) I find that the property damage S.T. testified about, which was caused by Bileen
contemporaneously during his commission of the assault, is relevant conduct.
Furthermore, S.T. testified that the materials needed to repair the damage Bileen
caused cost $886.23. (Id. at 36:6–41:22.) At the restitution hearing, Bileen conceded that
Case 3:24-cr-08077-SHD Document 57 Filed 04/29/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cost estimates for repair materials was an appropriate method for calculating the amount
of restitution owed for property loss, even where repairs have not yet been made. (Id. at
43:19–44:7.) I find by a preponderance of the evidence that Bileen directly and
proximately caused S.T.’s losses, and that the cost of repair materials—$886.23—is a
reasonable measure of S.T.’s losses based on Ex. 20, the estimate from Home Depot, and
S.T.’s testimony, which confirmed that the materials and quantities set forth in her final
restitution request were tied to specific damage caused by Bileen.4 Bileen will therefore
be required to pay this amount in restitution, albeit on a payment schedule given his limited
ability to pay. (See PSR ¶¶ 68–70.) See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Michael Kirby Bileen shall pay restitution in the
amount of $886.23 to victim S.T. in eight monthly installments of $100 and a final monthly
installment of $86.23. Payment of criminal monetary penalties, including restitution, is
due during imprisonment at a rate of not less than $25 per quarter. Amended Judgment to
issue.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2026.
4 This includes the $113.94 Kwikset lock combo, which was necessary because
Bileen’s damage to the front door required a new door with new locks. (Id. at 46:17–22).
Case 3:24-cr-08077-SHD Document 57 Filed 04/29/26 Page 5 of 5