UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-CR-172 

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

JORDAN I. MAKOWSKI, 

 Defendant.

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Amend the previously issued 

Judgment Order. (ECF No. 74.) 

The Court’s Amended Judgment Order (ECF No. 47) that is the subject of the Government’s 

Motion to Amend included a special instruction on the payment of monetary penalties. Section F of 

the Schedule of Payments states: 

While incarcerated, if the defendant is working in a non-UNICOR or Grade 5 

UNICOR job, defendant shall pay $25 per quarter toward defendant’s restitution 

obligation. If working in a Grade 1–4 UNICOR job, defendant shall pay 50% of 

defendant’s monthly pay toward defendant’s restitution obligation. Any change in 

the schedule shall be made only by order of this Court. 

(Special Instruction F, ECF No. 47, PageID 248.) Later, the Court issued an Agreed Order, which 

documented the parties’ agreement on restitution. That Order stated that the total restitution 

payment of $14,500 was “due immediately.” (ECF No. 68, PageID 341.) 

 In its Motion to Amend, the Government explains that it “recently learned that, despite the 

language of the subsequently issued Agreed Order, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), is limited by the 

special instruction regarding payment of monetary penalties contained in the Amended Judgment 

Order.” (ECF No. 74, PageID 359.) The Government continues that, the BOP facility where 

Defendant is housed no longer has the type of UNICOR jobs for prisoners described in the special 

Case: 2:18-cr-00172-EAS Doc #: 79 Filed: 10/21/24 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 368
2

instruction. (Id.) Still Defendant is working at that BOP facility, “receive[ing] approximately $70 

per month for that work, and is receiving other funds from friends or family members that result in 

him having an average of $2,000 in his BOP account every six months.” (Id.) Yet, because of the 

Special Instruction F, BOP officials are prevented from using Defendant’s funds to pay any greater 

amount of restitution than the $25 per quarter described in it. (Id.) Without Special Instruction F, 

BOP policies would allow BOP officials to utilize the funds Defendant is receiving to pay up to 

$175 per month toward his restitution obligations. (Id.)

Upon receipt of the Government’s Motion to Amend, Mr. Makowski filed a pro se motion 

requesting that the Court appoint him counsel to oppose the Government’s Motion, which this Court 

granted. (ECF Nos. 75, 76.) Once appointed, defense counsel filed a response brief stating “[a]fter a 

careful review of the record,” he was “unable to identify a non-frivolous objection to the 

government’s request.” (ECF No. 78.) 

The Government’s Motion to Amend is well-taken. A sentencing court retains the authority 

to modify a payment schedule under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). United States v. Carson, 55 F.4th 1053, 

1056 (6th Cir. 2022); 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) (“The court may also accept notification of a material 

change in the defendant’s economic circumstances from the United States . . . . Upon receipt of the 

notification, the court may, on its own motion, . . . adjust the payment schedule, or require 

immediate payment in full, as the interests of justice require.”).

The Court therefore GRANTS the Government’s Motion to Amend and ORDERS as 

follows:

• Special Instruction F in the Amended Judgment Order (ECF No. 47) is eliminated. 

• Defendant’s restitution obligation in the amount of $14,500 while in the custody of the BOP

is due in accordance with BOP policies under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, 

28 C.F.R. §§ 545.10–545.11.

Case: 2:18-cr-00172-EAS Doc #: 79 Filed: 10/21/24 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 369
3 

All other terms outlined in the Amended Judgment Order (ECF No. 47) will remain in full 

force as previously imposed. This case remains closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

10/21/2024 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cr-00172-EAS Doc #: 79 Filed: 10/21/24 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 370