Opinion
No. 18-4242
10-17-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD LAVON FERRIS, Defendant - Appellant.
John E. Davidson, DAVIDSON & KITZMAN, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, Nancy S. Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cr-00007-NKM-1) Before WYNN, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John E. Davidson, DAVIDSON & KITZMAN, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, Nancy S. Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Edward Lavon Ferris appeals the district court's amended judgment in a criminal case ordering restitution. In the original judgment, the district court deferred its final determination of restitution for 90 days. After the 90-day period expired, the district court granted the Government's motion for a final amended judgment. On appeal, Ferris contends that the district court lacked authority to issue the amended judgment ordering restitution, because it had waited too long in doing so. We affirm.
"We review restitution ordered generally for abuse of discretion, but 'assess de novo any legal questions raised with respect to restitution issues, including matters of statutory interpretation.'" United States v. Diaz, 865 F.3d 168, 173 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The district court determined that Ferris' arguments were without merit based on Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 608, 611 (2010). We have reviewed the record and the parties' arguments, and we agree with the district court.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED