Court Opinion

ID: 9907363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 15:00:36.669622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:32.786132
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14240    Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 12/06/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14240
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       STACY LEON BUTLER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:02-cr-00017-HL-TQL-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14240      Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 12/06/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-14240

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Stacy Butler, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       order granting in part the government’s motion to amend his res-
       titution order to apply his recent settlement award from an unre-
       lated civil case to his outstanding restitution obligation under 18
       U.S.C. § 3664(n).
              We review a district court’s disposition of an 18 U.S.C.
       § 3664(k) motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
       McClamma, 146 F. App’x 446, 448-49 & n.1 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing
       United States v. Vanhorn, 399 F.3d 884, 886 (8th Cir. 2005)). We also
       review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. United States
       v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021).
              The relevant statutory scheme for the issuance and enforce-
       ment of restitution orders is contained in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3572, 3613,
       and 3664. The district court, not the government, is charged with
       determining how a defendant is to pay restitution. See 18 U.S.C.
       § 3664(f)(2). Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996
       (“MVRA”), in each restitution order, “the court shall order restitu-
       tion to each victim in the full amount of each victim’s losses as de-
       termined by the court and without consideration of the economic
       circumstances of the defendant.” Id. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (“Upon deter-
       mination of the amount of restitution owed to each victim, the
       court shall . . . specify in the restitution order the manner in which,
       and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be paid .
USCA11 Case: 22-14240      Document: 18-1       Date Filed: 12/06/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-14240                Opinion of the Court                          3

       . . .”). The court will look to the financial resources and other assets
       of the defendant, the projected earnings and income of the defend-
       ant, and any other financial obligations of the defendant. Id.
       § 3664(f)(2).
               Under the MVRA, a district court may modify a final order
       of restitution upon a showing of a material change in the defend-
       ant’s circumstances. Id. § 3664(k). Either the government, the vic-
       tim, or the defendant himself may notify the district court and At-
       torney General of a material change in the defendant’s financial cir-
       cumstances that might affect his ability to pay restitution. Id. The
       Attorney General must then certify to the court that the victim
       who is owed restitution was notified of the change in circum-
       stances. Id. Upon receipt of the certification from the Attorney
       General, the court may, on its own motion, or the motion of the
       government, the victim, or the defendant, adjust the payment
       schedule, or require immediate payment in full, as the interests of
       justice require. Id. The MVRA further instructs that “[i]f a person
       obligated to provide restitution, or pay a fine, receives substantial
       resources from any source, including inheritance, settlement, or
       other judgment, during a period of incarceration, such person shall
       be required to apply the value of such resources to any restitution
       or fine still owed.” Id. § 3664(n).
              Under the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n), Butler was
       required to apply the amount obtained in settlement to his owed
       restitution, and § 3664(k) permitted the district court to amend his
       restitution order to allow as much. We therefore conclude that the
USCA11 Case: 22-14240     Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 12/06/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-14240

       district court did not abuse its discretion in amending Butler’s res-
       titution order to apply his settlement award to his owed restitution
       and affirm the district court’s order.
             AFFIRMED.