Opinion
2:15-cr-00164-TLN
06-01-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SECUNDINO ESQUIBEL, Defendant.
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Secundino Esquibel's (“Defendant”) Motion to Terminate Restitution Payments. (ECF No. 177.) No. opposition has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant's request.
On December 14, 2017, Defendant pleaded guilty to manufacture of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and depredation of public lands and resources in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361. (ECF No. 102.) On September 20, 2018, the Court sentenced Defendant to 87 months of imprisonment, a 36-month term of supervised release, a special assessment of $200, and restitution in the amount of $24, 710. (ECF Nos. 132, 133.)
In a pro se letter to the Court, Defendant complains that his prison facility is withdrawing ten dollars a month from his account for restitution. (ECF No. 177 at 1.) Defendant argues the Court “said that if the rest of [his] codefendants . . . were not going to pay, that [he] didn't have to either.”1 (Id.) The Court construes Defendant's letter as a motion to terminate his restitution obligations. However, Defendant does not cite any authority that would allow the Court to terminate restitution at this stage. Nor does Defendant articulate any grounds for terminating restitution or any flaw in the Court's restitution order. At sentencing, and then again in the final judgment, the Court ordered that restitution shall be “joint and several” with any codefendant, which means Defendant is liable for all or part of the restitution amount regardless of whether his codefendants comply with their restitution orders. (See ECF No. 133 at 6.)
Absent any evidence or argument as to why Defendant's well-supported order of restitution should be terminated, the Court DENIES Defendant's request. (ECF No. 177.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.