Opinion
4:12-cr-00278-BLW-2
05-04-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN CARLOS GARCIA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge
Before the Court is Defendant Juan Carlos Garcia's Motion to Modify Fine (Dkt. 333). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion.
Mr. Garcia was sentenced to a total term of 292 months of imprisonment and was ordered to pay a special assessment of $100 and a fine of $3,000. (Dkts. 221, 275.) While in custody, Mr. Garcia is to submit payments pursuant to the Bureau of Prison's Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. (See Dkt. 221.)
According to the information Mr. Garcia submitted in support of his motion, as of September 23, 2022, he has paid the $100 special assessment in full, and has paid almost $1,218 toward his $3,000 fine, leaving a balance due of about $1,782, or more than half of the original fine. Mr. Garcia states in his motion that he has three children that currently live with his “mother-in-law, ” and that he wishes to send money to help out with the children as much as he can. He further states that he has started working for the UNICOR prison industries program and that, pursuant its policies, UNICOR began taking 50% of his earned wages in November of 2021 to be credited towards paying off his fine. He seeks, in the pending motion, to have the Court reduce the fine imposed, or eliminate the remaining balance of the fine. (See Dkt. 333.)
However, “[a] district court does not have inherent power to resentence defendants at any time.” United States v. Handa, 122 F.3d 690, 691 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended on reh'g (Aug. 4, 1997) (citation omitted). Instead, its authority to resentence must generally flow from either a court of appeals mandate under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. Id. Here, there is no mandate from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Further, Rule 35 is inapplicable because it requires a motion from the government, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 35(b), and no government motion has been filed.
There is also authority, under 18 U.S.C. § 3573, to modify a sentence upon motion from the government based on a defendant's substantial assistance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3573. However, again, no government motion has been filed, making § 3573 also inapplicable.
Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(3) authorizes the Court to “adjust the payment schedule, or require immediate payment in full, ” of a fine when a defendant's economic circumstances have materially changed. It does not, however, authorize the Court to reduce or commute a fine. See 18 U.S.C. § 3572.
In sum, the Court lacks authority to reduce or commute Mr. Garcia's fine. See United States v. Duck, 774 Fed.Appx. 1039, 1040 (9th Cir. 2019) (“The district court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction over his motion to reduce, modify, or abate his fine.”) (citing Handa, 122 F.3d at 691). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Modify Fine (Dkt. 333) is DENIED