USA v. Victor Garry Baxter, No. 11-15333 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-15333 APRIL 9, 2012 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D.C. Docket No. 0:02-cr-60200-UU-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VICTOR GARRY BAXTER, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (April 9, 2012) Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In United States v. Baxter, 127 Fed. App x 471 (11th Cir. (11th Cir. 2005), this court affirmed Victor Garry Baxter s convictions and sentences for distribution of crack cocaine and for possession with intent to distribute cocaine powder. In affirming his sentences, the court rejected Baxter s challenge to the fine the district court imposed, noting that the district court, in fining Baxter $10,000 payable over a thirty-year period, had departed downward from the Guidelines range of $20,000 to $60,000. In July 2011, Baxter moved the district court to clarify the amount of the fine he was to pay each month while in prison. The court denied his motion. He then petitioned the district court for Modification or Remission to Deter Fine pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3573, seeking deferral of payments on the fine until his release from prison. The court denied his motion, and he now appeals the ruling. In the interests of justice, a district court may remit or defer the payment of a fine, or extend a defendant s payment schedule, upon the Government s petition showing that reasonable efforts to collect the fine are not likely to be effective. 18 U.S.C. § 3573. Here, because the petition was not filed by the Government, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Baxter s petition. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
