U.S. v. Brown

Full title: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Donald Earl Brown, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Nov 22, 2006

Case No. CR-2-89-243 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. CR-2-89-243.

November 22, 2006

OPINION AND ORDER

GEORGE SMITH, District Judge

Defendant Donald Earl Brown has filed a pro-se Motion for Reduction of Fine and Restitution (Doc. 33). The Government filed a response asserting that Defendant's Motion be denied (Doc. 34). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Defendant's Motion.

Defendant completed his term of imprisonment and supervised release which expired on April 5, 2006. Defendant, however, is still obligated to make restitution to the IRS, as well as pay a fine to the Court. Defendant asserts that the total amount he still owes is $104,000. Defendant argues that this amount is greater than he can pay and therefore requests that the amount be reduced.

The Government argues that there are no grounds in which the Court can reduced the Defendant's fine and restitution. Defendant failed to file a timely appeal of his fine when it was imposed and that any time for appeal has long since passed. Further, the Defendant would be held civilly liable to the IRS for the restitution amount. Finally, the Government argues that Defendant has failed to provide any financial information that indicates he is financially unable to pay the fine and restitution.

The Court agrees with the Government. 18 U.S.C. § 3572(c) provides that once a fine is imposed it is final unless it is modified or remitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3573; corrected under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or 18 U.S.C. § 3742; or appealed or modified under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. The Government has not filed a petition to modify the fine, nor are there any ground for correction under Rule 35, nor has the Defendant filed a timely appeal of the fine and restitution amount. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Fine and Restitution filed more than fifteen years after the fine was imposed does not assert any grounds to reduce his fine and restitution amount.

Defendant has failed to provide any specific information regarding what his payment plan is with respect to the fine and restitution amount. While the Court will not reduce the total amount owed, Defendant may consult his probation officer to have his payment plan modified.

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Fine and Restitution (Doc. 33).

The Clerk shall remove Doc. 33 from the Court's pending motions list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.