United States v. James R. MacArthur

Case: 13-13435 Date Filed: 07/10/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13435
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:05-cr-60203-JEM-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES R. MACARTHUR,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 10, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James MacArthur, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction of his post-judgment motion to recalculate his restitution
Case: 13-13435 Date Filed: 07/10/2014 Page: 2 of 4
obligation. We previously determined that the district court did not have inherent
or retained authority to modify MacArthur’s original restitution order. On appeal,
he now argues that the district court has inherent or retained authority to give credit
toward the balance of that order, without modifying it. The government has
responded by moving to summarily affirm the district court ruling and to stay the
briefing schedule in the meantime.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such
as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where
rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is
clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969);
see United States v. Martinez, 407 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (11th Cir. 2005) (construing
the defendant’s “unconventional” motion as a motion for summary reversal,
granting the motion, vacating the defendant’s sentence, and remanding the case for
resentencing where the district court had committed plain error by treating the
Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory).
We review de novo whether a district court has jurisdiction. See United
States v. Stossel, 348 F.3d 1320, 1321-22 (11th Cir. 2003) (reviewing whether a
district court had jurisdiction to consider a defendant’s motion to modify his
2
Case: 13-13435 Date Filed: 07/10/2014 Page: 3 of 4
sentence). Under the law of the case doctrine, our prior holdings are generally
binding in subsequent proceedings in the same case. Glock v. Singletary, 65 F.3d
878, 890 (11th Cir. 1995).
The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) requires the
district court to order restitution in fraud cases. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii).
An order of restitution under the MVRA shall be issued and enforced in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3664. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(d). Under that section, an
otherwise final order can be: (1) corrected under Fed.R.Cr.P. 35; (2) appealed and
modified under 18 U.S.C. § 3742; (3) amended under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5); or
(4) adjusted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3664(k), 3572, or 3613A. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(o)(1).
Courts do not have inherent authority to modify a sentence outside of the
framework provided by statutes and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See
United States v. Diaz-Clark, 292 F.3d 1310, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 2002).
After MacArthur appealed the district court’s denial of a motion to modify
his restitution order that he filed in 2011, we determined that the district court did
“not have inherent authority to modify a sentence outside of the specific
parameters provided by statute and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,” and
since MacArthur did not argue the applicability of any of the proper procedures,
the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the restitution order. United States
v. MacArthur, 510 F. App’x 802, 803 (11th Cir. 2013)(unpublished). Procedurally,
3
Case: 13-13435 Date Filed: 07/10/2014 Page: 4 of 4
we vacated the district court’s order, and remanded the case to the district court to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Id.Here, the issue of whether the district court had inherent or retained
authority to modify a restitution obligation was determined in previous
proceedings in this case, so MacArthur’s argument is foreclosed by the law of the
case doctrine. Glock, 65 F.2d at 890. Moreover, MacArthur seeks, in effect, the
same relief that was previously denied him—a recalculation of his victims’ losses
and a corresponding modification of the amount of restitution owed. He argues
that the district court had “inherent or retained” jurisdiction to hear his motion, but
because he did not invoke one of the statutory bases for appealing, correcting,
modifying, adjusting, or amending a final order of restitution, the district court
properly dismissed his motion for lack of jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(o)(1).
Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the
government’s motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
4