Case ID: f-appx_627/html/0204-02.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. Stephen D. GILLS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-7539.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 17, 2015.
    Decided: Dec. 22, 2015.
    Stephen D. Gills, Appellant Pro Se.. Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

. PER CURIAM:

Stephen Gills appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his schedule of restitution payments. When a defendant is ordered to pay restitution, and a “ ‘material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances [ ] might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution,’ ” the sentencing “court is authorized to adjust the payment schedule as the interests of justice require.” United States v. Grant, 715 F.3d 552, 554 (4th Cir.2013) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k)). Here, the district court found that Gills had alleged no material changes. We have reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court’s order declining to modify its restitution schedule. See United States v. Gills, No. 2:14-cr-00160-HCM-DEM (E.D.Va. Sept. 8, 2015).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gills’ 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,