Opinion
2:01-CR-15-FTM-29DNF.
March 23, 2006
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion for Remedy (Doc. #109), filed on March 21, 2006. Defendant seeks a hearing and a ruling that the forfeiture provision of the plea agreement satisfies the restitution portion of his Judgment. This is not the first time that defendant has sought relief on this basis. See Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion issued as mandate on March 13, 2006 (Doc. #108, pp. 3-4).
On January 14, 2004, the Court entered an Order (Doc. #87) denying defendant's Motion for Specific Performance and Emergency Motion for Cease and Desist Order stating that "it is unreasonable to read this sentence [of the Plea Agreement] to mean that any forfeiture would satisfy all restitution obligations." (Doc. #87, p. 3) (emphasis in original). Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal on January 20, 2004, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part the Order (Doc. #87). (Doc. #101). On June 9, 2005, the Court issued an Order (Doc. #102) vacating in part the January 14, 2004, Order to dismiss the Motion for Specific Performance for lack of jurisdiction.
For the reasons articulated by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the opinion issued as mandate on June 6, 2005, the motion will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant's Motion for Remedy (Doc. #109) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.