Filed: Aug. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant Beau Diamond's Motion for Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law (Dkt. #181). The motion is due to be denied. A brief review of the docket is in order. On April 28, 2014 (Dkt. #170), Diamond filed a Motion for Clarification as to the amount of restitution in his Amended Judgment of conviction (Dkt. #163) entered on September 28, 2012. On May 28, 2014 (Dkt. #173), the Court granted the motion in
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant Beau Diamond's Motion for Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law (Dkt. #181). The motion is due to be denied. A brief review of the docket is in order. On April 28, 2014 (Dkt. #170), Diamond filed a Motion for Clarification as to the amount of restitution in his Amended Judgment of conviction (Dkt. #163) entered on September 28, 2012. On May 28, 2014 (Dkt. #173), the Court granted the motion in ..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant Beau Diamond's Motion for Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law (Dkt. #181). The motion is due to be denied. A brief review of the docket is in order.
On April 28, 2014 (Dkt. #170), Diamond filed a Motion for Clarification as to the amount of restitution in his Amended Judgment of conviction (Dkt. #163) entered on September 28, 2012. On May 28, 2014 (Dkt. #173), the Court granted the motion in part clarifying that the judgment was correct as to the amount of restitution, $23,065,090.34.
Diamond then filed a motion to modify sentence (Dkt. #175) without stating specifically what relief he was seeking, but presumably to have this Court eliminate the requirement that he pay restitution. On June 30, 2014 (Dkt. #177), this Court denied the motion to modify. Diamond appealed that Order on July 29, 2014.
On August 6, 2014 (Dkt. #181), Diamond filed the instant Motion for Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law requesting this Court to make findings of facts and conclusions of law. The motion is due to be denied for several reasons. First, this Court lost jurisdiction when Diamond appealed the Order denying his Motion for Modification of sentence. Green Leaf Nursery v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003). Second, this Court does not have jurisdiction to modify the judgment of conviction since there is no clerical error in the amount of restitution. United States v. MacArthur, 510 F. App'x 802, 803 (11th Cir. 2013). An improper assessment of restitution is an issue for direct appeal of the judgment of conviction. Third, the case Diamond cites for the proposition that a court should make findings of fact has to do with a trial before a court without a jury, not a motion denied as a matter of law like the one Diamond is appealing.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant's Motion for Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law (Dkt. #181) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
