Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13058/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Veronica Denise Dale
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13056

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cr-00242-MEF-WC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

VERONICA DENISE DALE, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

No. 14-13058

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cr-00069-MEF-WC-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

USCA11 Case: 14-13058 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

 versus

VERONICA DENISE DALE, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(August 20, 2015)

Before HULL, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Veronica Denise Dale, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s denial of her post-judgment motions to modify her restitution order. 

Dale argues that the district court impermissibly delegated the task of setting a 

repayment schedule to the Bureau of Prisons and abused its discretion by denying 

her motions to modify her restitution based on changed economic circumstances. 

Dale’s first argument—that the district court improperly delegated the task 

of setting a repayment schedule to the BOP—is contradicted by the record. The 

judgment in her case shows that that the district court set a specific payment 

schedule requiring Dale to make an immediate lump sum payment of $494,624, 

USCA11 Case: 14-13058 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

with any remaining balance to be paid at a rate not less than $100 per month during 

her supervised release.1

 

Neither do we find any abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of 

Dale’s motions to modify her restitution order. Under the Mandatory Victims 

Restitution Act, a district court may modify a final order of restitution upon a 

showing of a material change in the defendant’s circumstances. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3664(k). However, modification under this provision requires a “bona fide

change in the defendant’s financial condition.” Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 

1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2003). Dale has made no showing of any such change. 

Thus, on this record, her “present financial status is no different from that 

contemplated by the district court when it imposed the restitution order.” Id. at 

1216. 

AFFIRMED. 

 

 1 The district court waived the interest requirement for any unpaid restitution. 

USCA11 Case: 14-13058 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 3 of 3