Opinion
18-cr-00205-RS-1
03-15-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD PETERSON, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF RESTITUTION
RICHARD SEEBORG Chief United States District Judge
In 2007, Defendant Richard Peterson was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, restitution of $6,663,349 and a special assessment of $200 in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). In 2018, the SDNY court transferred jurisdiction to the Northern District of California pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3605 with respect to Defendant's supervised release. The statute permits a court to transfer to another district court jurisdiction over a person on supervised release after a sentence has been imposed.
Defendant has filed a motion for reduction or offset of restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(2). Dkt. 6. The government contends that SDNY retains jurisdiction over matters pertaining to Defendant's sentence, including Defendant's instant motion. See, e.g., United States v. Webb, 394 Fed. App'x 497, 498 (10th Cir. 2010) (holding that although the defendant's supervised release term was transferred pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3605, the defendant had failed to identify a statute conferring jurisdiction on the merits of her motion challenging the restitution order in that case). Here, the sentencing court retains jurisdiction over the imposition and enforcement of restitution. Since Defendant's motion does not concern supervised release, this court does not have jurisdiction over it. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.