United States v. Lloyd Carr ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6673 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6673
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LLOYD B. CARR, a/k/a Lloyd Carr,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Parkersburg. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (6:12-cr-00210-1)
Submitted: June 24, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lloyd B. Carr, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6673 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd B. Carr appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) to adjust his restitution payment schedule. When a
defendant is ordered to pay restitution, and a “‘material change in the defendant’s economic
circumstances [] might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution,’” the district “court
is authorized to adjust the payment schedule ‘as the interests of justice require.’” United
States v. Grant, 715 F.3d 552, 554 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k)). We have
reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination to modify
Carr’s restitution payment schedule based on a material change in his economic
circumstances. See United States v. Sweatt, 85 F.4th 1240, 1241-42 (7th Cir. 2023) (stating
standard of review).
On appeal, Carr also contends that the district court judge should have recused
himself. Because Carr did not move the district court for recusal, we review his claim only
for plain error. See United States v. Chastain, 979 F.3d 586, 594 (8th Cir. 2020) (stating
standard of review). Carr fails to establish that recusal was required. See Belue v.
Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing valid bases for bias or
partiality motion); see also United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th Cir. 2008) (“The
presiding judge is not required to recuse himself simply because of unsupported, irrational
or highly tenuous speculation.” (cleaned up)).
Accordingly, we deny Carr’s motions to appoint counsel, and we affirm the district
court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6673 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3