RESPONSE in Opposition as to Amanda Christian filed by USA re 731 MOTION to… — USA v. Thomas et al (Dkt. 732)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS · Doc. 732 · 2023-10-13 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The government's response in opposition, filed October 13, 2023 as Doc. 732 in United States v. Amanda Christian, Criminal Action No. 1:20-CR-296-09-JPB-CMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. It opposes the defendant's Motion to Amend Judgment and Commitment (Doc. 731), which seeks an adjustment to her restitution payment schedule. The government argues that under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) the defendant has not shown a material change in her economic circumstances since sentencing, noting that the judgment (Doc. 569) made criminal monetary penalties due during imprisonment. It argues separately that she does not claim to have notified the Attorney General of any change. The four-page response is signed by Assistant United States Attorneys and a Fraud Section trial attorney and asks the court to deny the motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
AMANDA CHRISTIAN 
 
Criminal Action  
No. 1:20-CR-296-09-JPB-CMS 
 
Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment and 
Commitment 
The United States of America, by Ryan K. Buchanan, United States Attorney 
for the Northern District of Georgia, and Tal C. Chaiken and Nathan P. Kitchens,  
Assistant United States Attorneys, and by Glenn S. Leon, Chief of the Fraud 
Section, and Babasijibomi Moore, Trial Attorney for the United States Department 
of Justice, respectfully files this response in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to 
Amend Judgment and Commitment (Doc. 731). The Court should deny 
Defendant’s motion because she fails to establish either a material change in her 
economic circumstances that would justify an adjustment to her payment schedule 
or that she notified the Attorney General of such change. 
The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 provides that an order of 
restitution is a “final judgment” except in several narrow circumstances. 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3664(o); see also United States v. MacArthur, 510 F. App’x 802, 803 (11th Cir. 2013) 
(“We have further held that the district court does not have the inherent authority 
to modify a sentence outside of the specific parameters provided by statute and 
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”). The only relevant circumstance here 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 732     Filed 10/13/23     Page 1 of 4

2 
 
permits the district court to adjust the payment schedule for restitution upon the 
defendant’s showing of a “material change in the defendant’s economic 
circumstances that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution.” 18 
U.S.C. § 3664(k). The Defendant bears the burden of establishing a “bona fide 
change in [her] financial condition.” Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th 
Cir. 2003); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) (“The burden of demonstrating the financial 
resources of the defendant . . . shall be on the defendant.”).  
The Defendant’s motion requests an adjustment to her payment schedule 
based on her prison wages, (Doc. 731), but her submission does not establish a 
“bona fide change” in her economic circumstances “since the imposition of [her] 
sentence.” Cani, 331 F.3d at 1215–16. This Court surely anticipated that the 
Defendant’s income would be limited during her incarceration, but it nonetheless 
ordered that “[p]ayment of criminal monetary penalties is due during the period 
of imprisonment.” (Doc. 569). The Defendant also does not cite any change to the 
net worth she reported to Probation in July 2021 or suggest that her existing assets 
are unavailable to meet her restitution payment obligations. PSR ¶ 157. 
Accordingly, the Defendant’s “present financial status is no different from that 
contemplated by the [Court] when it imposed the restitution order,” and she thus 
cannot satisfy her burden to establish a “bona fide change” in her economic 
circumstances under Section 3664(k). Cani, 331 F.3d at 1216; see also United States v. 
Gladden, No. 1:12-CR-334-WSD, 2015 WL 6506306, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2015) 
(denying motion to adjust payment schedule when court originally ordered 
restitution payments during term of imprisonment, finding that defendant’s 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 732     Filed 10/13/23     Page 2 of 4

3 
 
“statements that he is indigent and unable to pay while he is incarcerated simply 
are not enough to modify his restitution payment schedule under Section 
3664(k)”). 
Even if the Defendant could establish a material change in her financial 
status, her motion still should be denied because she does not claim, much less 
establish, that she complied with her duty under Section 3664(k) to notify the 
Attorney General of her changed economic circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) 
(requiring defendants to “notify the court and the Attorney General of any 
material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances”). Accordingly, the 
Defendant’s motion should be denied on this independent basis. See United States 
v. Dupree, 590 F. App’x 857, 860 (11th Cir. 2014) (vacating adjusted restitution order 
based, in part, on fact that “the record does not reflect that [defendant] complied 
with his duty to notify the Attorney General of the change in his economic 
circumstances”); United States v. Ford, No. 3:15-CR-505-LSC-GMB, 2018 WL 
1152406, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 5, 2018) (noting that notification “must be made both 
to the court and to the Attorney General of the United States” under Section 
3664(k) and denying relief when defendant failed to notify Attorney General).      
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion.   
 
Dated: October 13, 2023.  
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
  
RYAN K. BUCHANAN 
United States Attorney 
GLENN S. LEON 
  Chief, Fraud Section 
   U.S. Department of Justice 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 732     Filed 10/13/23     Page 3 of 4

4 
 
 
 
TAL C. CHAIKEN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 273949 
 
 
SIJI MOORE 
  Trial Attorney, Fraud Section 
   U.S. Department of Justice 
NATHAN P. KITCHENS 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 263930 
 
 
600 U.S. Courthouse 
75 Ted Turner Drive SW 
Atlanta, GA 30303 
404-581-6000; Fax: 404-581-6181 
 
1400 New York Ave, NW 
Bond Building, 11th Floor 
Washington, DC 20005 
 202-514-2000; Fax: 202-514-3708 
Certificate of Service 
I filed a copy of this document on October 13, 2023 using the Court’s 
CM/ECF system, which will automatically generate notice of this filing to all 
counsel of record. A copy will also be sent by mail to the following address: 
Amanda Christian 
#55929-509 
FPC Alderson 
Federal Prison Camp  
Glen Ray Rd. Box A 
Alderson, WV 24910 
October 13, 2023 
 
 
 
NATHAN P. KITCHENS 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 732     Filed 10/13/23     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.292218.732.0.pdf

Size

116,383 bytes

SHA-256

168a629d14d2addd1c1331705cec151434a1965cba40b4af902d41936e0f2e55

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.292218.732.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)