ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO CORRECT AMENDED JUDGMENT BY SUSAN BARBER AND FELY JAMILI; DENYING FELY JAMILI'S PETITION FOR AMENDED RESTITUTION ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 345

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.

Before the Court are the following: (1) crime victim Susan J. Barber's ("Barber") letter, filed July 3, 2019, which the Court construes as a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, to correct the Amended Judgment, entered May 15, 2019; (2) crime victim Fely Jamili's ("Jamili") motion, filed July 12, 2019, "to Correct Amended Judgment and Restitution Schedule," pursuant to Rule 36; and (3) Jamili's "Petition for Amended Restitution Order Following Discovery of Further Loss," filed July 16, 2019, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) and § 3664(d)(5). The motions and the petition have been fully briefed. Having read and considered the written submissions in support of and in response to the three above-referenced matters, the Court rules as follows.

1. Motions to Correct Amended Judgment

In their motions, Barber and Jamili argue the amount of restitution respectively attributed to them in the Amended Judgment is not in conformity with the Court's oral ruling made at the hearing the Court conducted on February 27, 2019, at which time the Court determined the amount of restitution to which the victims were entitled. Additionally, Jamili argues the language following the word "Note" on page 6 of the Amended Judgment is not in conformity with the Court's oral ruling. For the reasons stated by the government (see United States' Response, filed August 2, 2019, at 2:16-5:20; see also Doc. No. 312-1), the Court finds the Amended Judgment is in conformity with the oral ruling made at the February 27 hearing and in accordance with the law of this Circuit. See United States v. Stanley, 309 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding "when other parties have paid civil damages for the same loss for which a defendant is liable," the court first ascertains the "full amount of the victim's loss" and "then subtracts the amount paid by the other parties"; citing 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(2)).

Accordingly, the motions to correct the Amended Judgment are hereby DENIED.

2. Petition for Amended Restitution Order

In her petition, Jamili seeks an order amending the Amended Judgment to include in the amount of restitution attributed to her the additional sum of $394.20, the cost she incurred to obtain from the court reporter the transcript of the February 27 hearing, in order to support her motion to correct the Amended Judgment.

As set forth above, and as noted in defendant's Response to the petition, the Amended Judgment correctly reflects the Court's oral ruling. Under such circumstances, the Court finds the additional sum claimed does not constitute a necessary expenditure "incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense." See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4).

Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.