Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0774-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael F. SCHULZE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10468.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 23, 2009.
    Kenneth Sorenson, Assistant U.S., USH — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael F. Schulze, Estill, SC, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael F. Schulze appeals pro se from the district court’s orders: (1) denying his motion to modify a $50,000 fíne; and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Schulze contends that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded the district court from denying his motion to modify the fine. This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Bhatia, 545 F.3d 757, 759 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that the doctrines apply only when there is a final judgment).

Schulze also contends that the district court erred when it determined that he had the ability to pay the remaining balance of the fine. The district court did not clearly err because the record contains sufficient evidence that Schulze owns a 1995 Chevrolet pick-up truck that may be sold to satisfy the fine. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.2009); United States v. Ladum, 141 F.3d 1328, 1344 (9th Cir.1998). The district court properly denied Schulze’s motion for reconsideration for the same reason.

Finally, Schulze requests that we review the evidence de novo to determine whether he has the ability to pay the fine. De novo review does not apply in this context. See, e.g., Orlando, 553 F.3d at 1240.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.