U.S. v. WILSON, 1:08 CR 478. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20120724a74
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 23, 2012
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DONALD C. NUGENT, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Jomo Kenyatta Wilson ("Defendant's") Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment and Motion for Additional Findings of Facts. (ECF #31.) Defendant's Motions come in response to this Court's Marginal Entry Order denying Defendant's previous Motion for Relief Pursuant to Civil Rule 60(a). (ECF #30.) In his motion for relief, Defendant alleged that this Court had erred in failing to set a specific schedule of
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DONALD C. NUGENT, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Jomo Kenyatta Wilson ("Defendant's") Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment and Motion for Additional Findings of Facts. (ECF #31.) Defendant's Motions come in response to this Court's Marginal Entry Order denying Defendant's previous Motion for Relief Pursuant to Civil Rule 60(a). (ECF #30.) In his motion for relief, Defendant alleged that this Court had erred in failing to set a specific schedule of ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
DONALD C. NUGENT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Jomo Kenyatta Wilson ("Defendant's") Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment and Motion for Additional Findings of Facts. (ECF #31.) Defendant's Motions come in response to this Court's Marginal Entry Order denying Defendant's previous Motion for Relief Pursuant to Civil Rule 60(a). (ECF #30.) In his motion for relief, Defendant alleged that this Court had erred in failing to set a specific schedule of restitution payments and in doing so allocated excessive authority to the Bureau of Prisons.
Rule 60(a) permits the court to "correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Here, however, there was no mistake in the judgment. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3664, does not require the district court to set a specific schedule of restitution payments. See United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 794 (7th Cir. 2008). In fact, the Bureau of Prisons has "ample authority" to determine such a payment schedule. Id. As the absence of a payment schedule in the judgment was not a mistake, Defendant's Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment and his Motion for Additional Findings of Fact are DENIED. (ECF #31.) IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
