Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00478/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00478-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Robinson
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBINSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00478-SI-1 

FIRST ORDER ON RESTITUTION

Re: Dkt. No. 72

Presently before the Court is pro se defendant Matthew Robinson’s motion for termination 

of restitution, based on his changed circumstances. Dkt. No. 72. The Court finds that the record is 

currently insufficient to make a ruling on the request, and accordingly will order that the materials 

described below be provided to the Court. If these materials are produced and are satisfactory, the 

Court will reduce the amount of the monthly payments defendant must make from $100 per month 

to $50 per month. However, defendant will remain jointly and severally liable for his $39,314 

payment obligation.

BACKGROUND

Between June 15, 2006 and June 13, 2008, defendant Matthew Robinson robbed or 

attempted to rob six banks, four of them with his co-conspirator Vincent Mertes. He obtained 

$39,314 during those robberies. See Dkt. No. 27 (plea agreement). Defendant pleaded guilty to 

six counts of robbing or attempting to rob a bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Defendant 

also agreed, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, to pay restitution to the financial institution 

victims of his crimes. Defendant was sentenced to 60 months in custody. While incarcerated, 

defendant participated in the BOP’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”). The 

Case 3:09-cr-00478-SI Document 76 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court ordered payment of the special assessment and restitution as follows:

Payment in monthly installments of $100.00, to commence 60 days after release 

from imprisonment to a term of supervision . . . .

While incarcerated, payments of not less than $25 per quarter, shall be paid towards 

the special assessment through the BOP Inmate Financial Responsibility Program 

and another payment of not less than $25 per quarter, shall be paid towards 

restitution through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program . . . .

In total, the Court ordered defendant to pay $39,914 joint and several restitution to his victims. 

According to the government, defendant has paid $2,200 in restitution since February 5, 2014. He 

has also paid his entire $600 special assessment. Dkt. No. 75 at 2. The Court commends 

defendant on his timely payments.

LEGAL STANDARD

18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(f)(3)(A) provides that “[a] restitution order may direct the defendant to 

make a single, lump-sum payment, partial payments at specified intervals, in-kind payments, or a 

combination of payments at specified intervals and in-kind payments.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(h) 

further directs that “[i]f the court finds that more than 1 defendant has contributed to the loss of a 

victim, the court may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount of restitution or 

may apportion liability among the defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim’s 

loss and economic circumstances of each defendant.” Finally, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(k) states:

A restitution order shall provide that the defendant shall notify the court and the 

Attorney General of any material change in the defendant’s economic 

circumstances that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution. The court 

may also accept notification of a material change in the defendant’s economic 

circumstances from the United States or from the victim. The Attorney General 

shall certify to the court that the victim or victims owed restitution by the 

defendant have been notified of the change in circumstances. Upon receipt of 

the notification, the court may, on its own motion, or the motion of any party, 

including the victim, adjust the payment schedule, or require immediate payment in 

full, as the interests of justice require.

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that defendant has articulated a change in circumstance. He states that he 

now has a 14-month-old child to provide for, as well as two additional stepchildren. He states that 

Case 3:09-cr-00478-SI Document 76 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

he currently makes $13.30 per hour. Dkt. No. 72. The Court finds that these factors, if supported 

factually, do constitute a material change in defendant's economic circumstances, and would 

warrant a $50 reduction in his monthly payment amounts. This case is dissimilar to a situation 

where a condition, known to the Court at the time of sentencing, remained in effect at the time a

defendant moved the Court to amend or reduce restitution. See, e.g., United States v. Soroka, 508 

F. Supp. 2d 869, 871 (D. Or. 2007) (citing United States v. Vega, No. CR04-0413MJP, 2007 WL 

1655229, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 6, 2007)).

CONCLUSION

Before the Court can adjust defendant’s payment schedule the Attorney General must 

certify the appropriate notification has been provided to the victims. The Court ORDERS the 

Attorney General to provide such notice to the victims and certify same to the Court. 

Additionally, the Court ORDERS defendant to file, under seal or via confidential mail to the 

Court, evidence of the birth of his youngest child, as well as any additional documentation that 

might satisfy the Court of his changed circumstance; namely, parental payment obligations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00478-SI Document 76 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3