Court Opinion

ID: 9946036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 22:00:56.133894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:23.413576
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 28 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-831
                                                D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00093-KJM-AC-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

CHARLES HEAD,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Charles Head appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion to modify his restitution order under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Head contends his restitution order is internally inconsistent because it

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
requires restitution to be paid both in an immediate lump sum and under a

repayment schedule, in violation of United States v. Holden, 908 F.3d 395, 403-04

(9th Cir. 2018). This claim is not properly before us because he raises it for the

first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

In any event, the record demonstrates that the judgment requires restitution

payments to begin immediately pursuant to a repayment schedule and does not

require an immediate lump sum payment of the entire amount owed.

      Head also contends the district court erred by failing to consider his changed

financial circumstances when it denied his motion. The district court’s order

makes clear that it understood Head’s claims and did not abuse its discretion in

concluding they did not warrant revising his restitution order. See United States v.

Lillard, 935 F.3d 827, 833 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[Section] 3664(k) grants the district

court discretion in addressing a defendant’s changed economic circumstances.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                        2                                      23-831