Order — United States v. Alexander (Dkt. 81, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

An order of Judge Matthew W. McFarland in United States v. Lashawnda Alexander, Case No. 1:22-cr-64, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, filed March 18, 2025 as Doc 81. It addresses the government's Motion to Amend Judgment (Doc. 79), which asks that the Judgment (Doc. 75) reflect the forfeiture money judgment of $51,291.14 already ordered in the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Doc. 69). The order cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B) and Rule 36, which allows the court to correct an error arising from oversight or omission at any time. It directs that the judgment refer to the preliminary forfeiture order in place of the earlier indictment language and that an Amended Judgment be filed on the docket.

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

Record facts

Full text

Case: 1:22-cr-00064-MWM Doc #: 81 Filed: 03/18/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 428



                     IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                        WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                           Case No. 1:22-cr-64

                      Plaintiff,                    Judge Matthew W. McFarland

               V.


 LASHAWNDA ALEXANDER,

                      Defendant.


                                          ORDER


       This matter is before the Court on the Government's Motion to Amend Judgment

(Doc. 79). The Government seeks to amend the Judgment (Doc. 75) to reflect the forfeiture

money judgment in the amount of $51,291.14, as the Court previously ordered in the

Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Doc. 69).

       Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B), "[t]he court must .. .

include the forfeiture order, directly or by reference, in the judgment, but the court's

failure to do so may be corrected at any time under Rule 36." In turn, Rule 36 reads:" After

giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical

error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record

arising from oversight or omission." Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

       The forfeiture allegation in the Indictment provided notice that the United States

would seek forfeiture of any property "which constitutes or is derived from proceeds

traceable to the violation, including but not limited to, a money judgment equal to at least

   Case: 1:22-cr-00064-MWM Doc #: 81 Filed: 03/18/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 429



$91,000, which represents the proceeds that Defendant obtained from the offenses."

(Indictment, Doc. 24, Pg. ID 93.) After the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts, the

Court found that Defendant had obtained proceeds from the wire fraud scheme in the

amount of $51,291.14. (Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, Doc. 69, Pg. ID 312.) This amount

reflected the remaining principal balance on Defendant's fraudulently obtained loan. (Id.)

The Court accordingly entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. §

981(a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), ordering the entry of a money judgment in the

amount of $51,291.14. (Id.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4), the

Court further ordered that "the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture shall become final as to

the defendant at sentencing and shall be made part of the sentence and included in the

judgment." (Id.)

       Following sentencing, in which the Court advised Defendant of forfeiture in this

matter, the Court entered forfeiture in the written Judgment "as identified in the

Indictment." (Judgment, Doc. 75.) The Court therefore finds it appropriate-following

the notice given by the Government's filing of its Motion to Amend Judgment-to amend

the Judgment (Doc. 75) to clarify that a money judgment is ordered in the amount of

$51,291.14.

       Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS the following:

      1. The Government's Motion to Amend Judgment (Doc. 79) is GRANTED;

      2. The Judgment SHALL BE AMENDED to include "A money judgment of

          $51,291.14, as identified in the Preliminary Forfeiture Order" in lieu of the

          previous" As identified in the Indictment" language (Doc. 75, Pg. ID 415); and

                                            2

Case: 1:22-cr-00064-MWM Doc #: 81 Filed: 03/18/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 430



   3. The Amended Judgment SHALL BE FILED on the docket.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.



                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                         SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                                        1A/·~4~
                                     By: - - -w------ - - - - - -- --++-- -
                                         JUDGE MATTHEW W. McF




                                     3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ohsd.270900.81.0.pdf

Size

1,392,302 bytes

SHA-256

0f7646bb62b023046ead2df8d5787e06a03d6c9b50e7e579bea446e63f151e36

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ohsd.270900.81.0.pdf

Original

archive.org