Opinion
Case No. 2:04-CR-00175.
October 8, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Rodell K. Rahmaan's ("Rahmaan") Motion to Modify Financial Sanctions. (Doc. No. 29.) For the reasons set forth in below, this Court DENIES Rahmaan's Motion.
II. BACKGROUND
Rahmaan pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base on September 5, 2005, and was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment. As part of his sentence, he was ordered by the Court to pay a $100 special assessment and a $2,000 fine. Rahmaan is currently working in a non-UNICOR grade job in which he earns $17-$23 per month. According to Rahmaan, the bulk of his earnings are attached to satisfy the fine, leaving him with little funds to pay for commissary and personal items not provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Rahmaan argues that when the fine was imposed this Court anticipated that he would receive a UNICOR job, which would lessen the hardship of the financial sanction. Rahmaan claims that in his current circumstances the fine imposes an undue hardship and requests that this Court suspend the balance of the fine due or set a payment rate at no more than $25 per quarter.
The Government opposes Rahmaan's motion on two grounds. First, the Government argues that Rahmaan does not have standing to request modification of the fine or the terms of payment. Second, the Government asserts that this Court's Judgement Order provides for the relief Rahmaan seeks.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Rahmaan's Motion seeks an order modifying the part of his sentence involving monetary sanctions. The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3573 however, permits only the Government to petition for modification or remission of a fine imposed as part of a criminal sentence. Courts have interpreted section 3573 as giving the right to petition for a modification exclusively to the Government. United States v. Linker, 920 F.2d 1, 2 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Mays, 13 Fed. Appx. 283, 283 (6th Cir. 2001); United States v. Grannis, 84 Fed. Appx. 480, 481 (6th Cir. 2003). This Court agrees. Rahmaan is not entitled to petition this Court, by motion or otherwise, for a modification to the fine imposed by this Court's Judgment Order of October 11, 2005.
In addition, the Court notes that the Judgement Order plainly provides for Rahmaan to pay $25 per quarter toward his fine while working in a non-UNICOR job. In fact, according to his United States Department of Justice Consolidated Debt Collection System payment history, Rahmaan is already paying only $25 per quarter toward his obligation. (Gov't Ex. B). Rahmaan's Motion would be therefore moot even if Rahmaan were the proper party to petition this Court for modification.