United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Court on a motion filed by Defendant
Michael Lieberman for reconsideration of a prior order which
amended a judgment of conviction to substitute National Union
Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh ("National
Union") as the victim and primary payee of restitution
for Credit Agricole Securities ("Credit Agricole").
April 26, 2017, Judge Cooper entered an order substituting in
National Union as the primary payee of restitution. (ECF No.
26). On January 24, 2018, Lieberman filed a motion to
reconsider that order. (ECF No. 29).
contends that "[t]he only ways to amend a final order of
restitution" are set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3664(o). (Brief
of Lieberman, ECF No. 29 at 3). The Government contends that
subsection (o) applies only "to substantive changes
(i.e., the elimination or reduction of restitution),"
and cites three sources of legal authority that, it argues,
justified the Court's order: Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 36; the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996
(MVRA); and the All Writs Act. (Government's Brief, ECF
No. 39 at 2-5).
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically
authorize motions for reconsideration, "the New Jersey
Local Rules of Criminal Procedure specifically incorporate
Local Civil Rule 7. 1(i), which governs such motions."
United States v. Demuro, 2010 WL 2696105 at *2
(D.N.J. July 2, 2010); see also L. Crim. R. 1.1.
Motions for reconsideration must "be served and filed
within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment on
the original motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge."
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
outset, the Court notes that Defendant's motion for
reconsideration was extraordinarily late, having been filed
on January 24, 2018; almost nine months after Judge
Cooper's order. There being no apparent ground for
excusable neglect, the motion is denied on that ground.
Victim Restitution Act
the Court also agrees that Judge Cooper's order was
proper. This motion concerns a conflict between two federal
statutes. As a general rule, the Third Circuit "look[s]
with disfavor upon changes to a judgment after the
fact." United States v. Bennett, 423, F.3d 271,
276- 77 (3d Cir. 2005). However, in some circumstances, such
amendments are permitted by court rule or by statute. Under
18 U.S.C. § 3664(o), which governs orders of
A sentence that imposes an order of restitution is a final
judgment notwithstanding the fact that-
(1) such a sentence can subsequently be- a. corrected under
Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and
section 3742 of chapter 235 of this title; b. appealed and
modified under section 3742; c. amended under subsection
3664(k), 3572, or 3613A; or
(2) the defendant may be resentenced under section 3565 or
18 U.S.C. § 3664(o). None of subsection o's
provisions permitting modification apply to Judge