United States of America v. Celia J. Stearns

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CELIA J. STEARNS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30113
D.C. No. 2:01-cr-00171-RHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Celia J. Stearns appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to
sever joint liability and other alternative relief. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-30113 2
Stearns contends that the district court erred when it held that it lacked
jurisdiction to amend the judgment to sever joint liability, or to compel the
government to pursue the estate of her co-defendant to recover restitution
payments. Stearns fails to establish the applicability of any of the limited
circumstances under which an order of restitution may be altered. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3664(o); see also United States v. Morales, 328 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2003)
(district courts do not have “inherent authority” to modify a fine imposed as part of
a sentence). Additionally, Stearns identifies no authority upon which the court
may compel the government to pursue the estate of her co-defendant to recover
restitution payments. See generally United States v. Bright, 353 F.3d 1114, 1124
(9th Cir. 2004) (“Nothing in the [Mandatory Victims Restitution Act] indicates that
district courts themselves are required to reach out and order the government to
transfer forfeited funds from government entities to victims.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --