Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11-CR-0132 AWI
04-09-2020
UNITED STATES, Plaintiff v. KARINA S. BEARD, Defendant
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE MONTHLY RESTITUTION PAYMENT
(Doc. No. 17)
On January 12, 2012, pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant was sentenced to 12 months in prison for four violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) and two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1920 (false statement to obtain compensation). See Doc. No. 16. As part of the judgment, Defendant was ordered to pay nearly $82,000 in restitution. See id.
On April 7, 2020, a "Payment Transmittal" in the amount of $25 was submitted to the Clerk's office by Defendant. See Doc. No. 17. The $25 was paid in furtherance of the restitution order. Handwritten on the "Payment Transmittal" was the following: "During this crisis, can I pay less? Like $10 per month (please)." Id. No other information is provided. Due to the handwritten request, the Clerk's office filed the "Payment Transmittal" as a motion to reduce monthly restitution payment.
A court may adjust a restitution payment schedule if it determines that a defendant's economic circumstances have materially changed. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k); United States v. Turner, 312 F.3d 1137, 1143 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Calvert, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222915, *2 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2017). Here, there is no basis for the Court to adjust Defendant's restitution payment schedule. The Court recognizes that the entire country is dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. However, merely invoking "the crisis," without any showing of a material change in economic circumstances, does not justify a change in the payment schedule. Defendant's motion is not adequately supported and will be denied. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k).
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to reduce monthly restitution payments (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 9, 2020
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE