immediately. See Cani, 331 F.3d at 1216, Since no material

change is found to have occurred, it was not necessary to send

notice to victims prior to ruling on the proposed modification,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Iles's motion to

amend judgment [375] is denied. This order is without prejudice

to defendant following Bureau of Prisons administrative

procedures for seeking to modify the amount of her funds

that are to be credited to restitution.

ENTER:

Wb im/T (by

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: AUGUST S, 2004



331 F.3d 1210, 1215-16 (11th Cir. 2003). Section 3664(k)
provides:
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.

Based on changed financial circumstances, a court may modify the
requirement that restitution be paid immediately and instead
require that payment begin after the defendant's release from
custody. See, e.g., United States v. Bowles, 2003 WL 21396691
(S.D.N.¥. June 16, 2003).

Defendant has not shown a change of her financial
circumstance. The presentence report indicated that defendant
had previously received gifts and loans from friends to help her
support herself, including to support herself following a prior
conviction. Gifts of a few hundred dollars a month while
incarcerated are not unusual or unexpected. The report that
defendant's daughters are willing to provide her gifts of $200 a
month does not qualify as a material change in defendant's

economic circumstances. Without such a change, no basis exists

fox modifying the prior order that restitution is due



Mine Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Nene otaeigaed oes | WILLIAM T. HART | Sat Jef ter

CASE NUMBER 01 CR 852-6 DATE AUGUST 5, 2004
CASE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vy. PEITZ, et al. (Def. Monica M. Iles)
TITLE

[Iu the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b)state briefly the nuture

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) im} Brief in support of motion due

(3) CQ Answer brief to motion due___., Reply to answer brief'due

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing ons set for att.

(3) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on ss setfor_ at.
(6) J Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for}on at

(8) o {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] hetd/continued to at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

QFRCP4(m) (Cl) Local Rule 41.1 C)FRCP4)(a)(1) [1 FRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry] Defendant Iles's motion to amend judgment [375] is denied.
This order is without prejudice to defendant following Bureau of Prisons
administrative procedures for seeking to modify the amount of her funds that
are to be credited to restitution.

di) gf [For further detail see attached Memorandum Opinion and Order.]

Document
Number

No notives required, advised in open court

2

No notices required.

ui

o | Notices mailed by judge’s staff, AUG 05 2004

Notified counsel by telephone.

dare docketed

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge pane

courtroom
ow depuly's
iniliuls

mailing initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Vv. No. 01 CR 852-6

MONICA M. ILES,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Following her conviction on eight counts of wire fraud
involving a fraudulent investment scheme, defendant Monica Iles
was sentenced to 78 months! incarceration to be followed by three
years' supervised release, Iles was also ordered to pay an $800
assessment and $11,109,970 in restitution. The combined amount
was ordered to be paid in a lump sum payment due immediately.
Iles was sentenced on April 30, 2003 and surrendered on
September 9, 2003.

On June 9, 2004, Ties filed her "motion to amend
judgment" in which she requests that the order of restitution be
modified so that restitution is not due until after she is
released from incarceration. Iles represents that, in the past,
she has received approximately $350 per month in gifts from

friends and her daughters. She represents that her daughters

continue to or are willing to continue to send her approximately

380



$200 per month. However, the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") credits
approximately $145 per month of these payments toward
restitution. It is unclear whether she means $145 of the $200
from her daughters or $145 when she received $350, It is
conceded that the BOP is acting in accordance with applicable
regulations. TJles contends she needs her daughters' money for
purchasing necessities and that, while her daughters are willing
to help support her, they are not necessarily willing to make
contributions toward restitution payments. Iles requests that
the payment of additional restitution be postponed so she can
receive the full amount of the gifts from her daughters.

The government opposes the motion. The government
contends that it is for the BOP, not the court, to decide how
monetary gifts to prisoners are to be allocated. The government
also contends that plaintiff must first exhaust her
administrative remedies with the BOP before bringing a habeas
corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The government misconstrues the nature of defendant's
motion. Iles is not alleging that the BOP has acted improperly.
Neither is defendant attempting to challenge the amount of
restitution that was imposed. Iles is instead attempting to
modify the court-ordered payment schedule for paying the
restitution that was imposed. In accordance with 18 U.S.C

§ 3664(k), motions to modify the term of payment for restitution

may be brought before the district court. Cani v, United States,