United States of America v. Charles Head

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES HEAD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-831
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00093-KJM-AC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Charles Head appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to modify his restitution order under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Head contends his restitution order is internally inconsistent because it
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-831
requires restitution to be paid both in an immediate lump sum and under a
repayment schedule, in violation of United States v. Holden, 908 F.3d 395, 403-04
(9th Cir. 2018). This claim is not properly before us because he raises it for the
first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
In any event, the record demonstrates that the judgment requires restitution
payments to begin immediately pursuant to a repayment schedule and does not
require an immediate lump sum payment of the entire amount owed.
Head also contends the district court erred by failing to consider his changed
financial circumstances when it denied his motion. The district court’s order
makes clear that it understood Head’s claims and did not abuse its discretion in
concluding they did not warrant revising his restitution order. See United States v.
Lillard, 935 F.3d 827, 833 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[Section] 3664(k) grants the district
court discretion in addressing a defendant’s changed economic circumstances.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --