Case ID: f-appx_543/html/0308-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward DICKEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-7002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 17, 2013.
    Decided: Oct. 21, 2013.
    Edward Dickey, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy D. Belevetz, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
    Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Dickey appeals the district court’s order denying for lack of jurisdiction his 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) (2006) motion to modify his schedule of restitution payments. Although the district court incorrectly stated that it lacked jurisdiction, we affirm. Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir.1992) (“[This court] may affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on the recordf.]”).

Dickey argues that his restitution payments should be reduced because he is not presently employed while imprisoned. However, the district court’s judgment of restitution contemplates such an eventuality and reduces Dickey’s required restitution payments accordingly. Therefore, Dickey has not shown a material change in his circumstances sufficient to warrant modification of restitution.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Dickey’s 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.