United States of America v. Johnson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	No. CR-14-342-1-C
)
MAURICE MORLEE JOHNSON, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant has sent the Court a letter outlining several complaints about the restitution
imposed as part of his sentence. 	The Court directs the Clerk to file the letter and informs
Defendant that any request for relief should be filed with the Court Clerk and served on
opposing counsel. 	It is inappropriate to correspond directly with a judicial officer.
Nevertheless, the Government has filed a response in objection and the Court will
address the matter raised. 	Defendant complains that he was not present for the restitution
hearing. 	Counsel for each Defendant in this and the related case was notified of the
opportunity for their client to be heard on the issue of restitution. 	Defendant’s counsel did
not respond. 	Ultimately, the Court resolved the restitution issue without holding an
evidentiary hearing. 	Even had a hearing been held and Defendant been present, his objection
– a request to delay restitution payments until he was on supervised release – would have been
denied.
Defendant also argues that the amount of payments withheld as part of the Bureau of
Prisons financial responsibility program is excessive and requests the Court to reduce that
amount. 	However, Defendant fails to offer any authority in support of his request. 	As
Case 5:14-cr-00342-SLP Document 112 Filed 07/18/19 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff noted in its Response, Defendant failed to file an appeal and therefore his sentence is
final. 	18 U.S.C. § 3664(o). If he believes that a modification of his sentence is warranted
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) or that he is entitled to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255, he
must file a Motion supporting either claim for relief. 	Any Motion pursuant to § 2255 must be
filed on the proper form.
Accordingly, Defendant’s letter, construed as a request to modify the terms of his
restitution payments (Dkt. No. 109), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of July 2019.
Case 5:14-cr-00342-SLP Document 112 Filed 07/18/19 Page 2 of 2