Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Celia J. STEARNS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-18
Citations: 472 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 11-30113
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Celia J. STEARNS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Celia J. STEARNS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30113.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 18, 2012.
Pamela Jackson Byerly, Assistant U.S., Frank A. Wilson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Celia J. Stearns appeals from the district court's order denying her motion to sever joint liability and other alternative relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Stearns contends that the district court erred when it held that it lacked jurisdiction to amend the judgment to sever joint liability, or to compel the government to pursue the estate of her co-defendant to recover restitution payments. Stearns fails to establish the applicability of any of the limited circumstances under which an order of restitution may be altered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(o); see also United States v. Morales, 328 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2003) (district courts do not have "inherent authority" to modify a fine imposed as part of a sentence). Additionally, Stearns identifies no authority upon which the court may compel the government to pursue the estate of her co-defendant to recover restitution payments. See generally United States v. Bright, 353 F.3d 1114, 1124 (9th Cir.2004) ("Nothing in the [Mandatory Victims Restitution Act] indicates that district courts themselves are required to reach out and order the government to transfer forfeited funds from government entities to victims.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.