Order denying 731 Motion to Amend/Correct as to Amanda Christian (9) — USA v. Thomas et al. (Dkt. 1152, N.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS · Doc. 1152 · 2024-11-25 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
v. 
     CRIMINAL ACTION NO.           
     1:20-CR-00296-JPB-09
AMANDA CHRISTIAN, 
Defendant. 
ORDER  
This matter is before the Court on Amanda Christian’s (“Defendant”) 
Motion to Amend Judgment and Commitment [Doc. 731].  This Court finds as 
follows: 
BACKGROUND 
On September 13, 2022, Defendant was sentenced to forty-one months of 
imprisonment and three years of supervised release for conspiracy to commit 
fraud.  See [Doc. 569].  Defendant was also ordered to pay restitution totaling 
$835,542 to be paid jointly and severally.  Id. at 6.  Defendant is currently 
incarcerated at Federal Prison Camp Alderson (“FPC Alderson”) in West Virginia.  
[Doc. 731].  
Defendant filed the instant Motion requesting that this Court amend her 
restitution payment schedule to lower her payment to $100 every quarter while she 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1152     Filed 11/25/24     Page 1 of 4

 
2
remains incarcerated.  Id.  Defendant requests a lower payment amount because 
her current employment position in the prison library pays only $19 to $23 per 
month.  Id.    
The Government opposes Defendant’s motion.  [Doc. 732].  In its 
opposition, the Government contends that Defendant has “failed to establish a 
material change in her economic circumstances that would justify an adjustment to 
her payment schedule.”  Id.  According to the Government, the Court knew when it 
ordered Defendant’s payment schedule that she would have limited funds while 
incarcerated.  Id. at 2.  In addition to this, the Government asserts that Defendant 
did not “cite any change to the net worth she reported to Probation in 2021.”  Id.   
The Government also argues that even if Defendant could establish a material 
change in her economic circumstances, her motion should be denied because she 
did not notify the Attorney General of her changed economic circumstances as she 
was required to do under § 3664k.  Id. at 3.  
ANALYSIS 
 
When ordering restitution, courts consider both the loss sustained by the 
victims and “the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and 
earning ability of the defendant and the defendant’s dependents, and such other 
factors as the court deems appropriate.”  United States v. McClamma, 146 F. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1152     Filed 11/25/24     Page 2 of 4

 
3
App’x 446, 449 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(B)(i)(II) and 
citing § 3664(f)(2)(A–C)).  After a restitution payment schedule has been set 
schedule pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3363 and 3364, a defendant may notify the court 
of a “material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect 
the defendant’s ability to pay restitution” after participating in a restitution 
payment.  See § 3664(k).  The Court may then adjust the defendant’s restitution 
payment schedule “as the interests of justice require.”  See id.  However, such 
adjustments may only be issued if there is a “bona fide change in the defendant’s 
financial condition” that affects his or her ability to pay restitution.  McClamma, 
146 F. App’x at 449 (quoting Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 
2003)).   
In her motion, Defendant provides the Court with her current prison wages 
and requests that her payment schedule be adjusted.  However, the motion fails to 
demonstrate a material change in Defendant’s economic circumstances since the 
imposition of her sentence, which included a term of imprisonment.  See Cani, 331 
F.3d at 1216; see also United States v. Gladden, No. 12-CR-334-WSD, 2015 WL 
6506306, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2015) (denying defendant’s request for relief 
from restitution payments when the sentencing court “anticipated that [the 
defendant’s] ability to pay restitution would be limited by the period of 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1152     Filed 11/25/24     Page 3 of 4

4
incarceration to which it sentenced him” and “[n]othing ha[d] changed except the 
duration and location of [the defendant’s] imprisonment”).   
  Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment and Commitment 
[Doc. 731] is DENIED.  
SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2024. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1152     Filed 11/25/24     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.292218.1152.0.pdf

Size

128,964 bytes

SHA-256

7ad08c87a2d2d80bad1797f0473a93560430d3e21182c4e9c23dfc6e07d106b3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.292218.1152.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)