USA V. RANDY HALL, No. 22-30078 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 22-30078 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00225-RSM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* RANDY LEE HALL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Randy Lee Hall appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting in part the government’s motion to require payment from his inmate trust account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Hall contends that the district court’s adjustment of his restitution payment * 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). schedule was not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) because the court was improperly notified of the change in his economic circumstances. Specifically, he alleges that an employee of the Bureau of Prisons, rather than “the United States,” gave notice to the court. This claim fails because it was the United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) that notified the district court of the change in Hall’s circumstances by filing a motion to require payment, and Hall does not allege, nor could he, that the USAO was not a proper representative of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 547 (authorizing United States attorneys to act on behalf of the United States). For the same reason, we reject Hall’s claim that the notice violated BOP policy. Because the district court was authorized to adjust Hall’s restitution payment schedule under § 3664(k), we do not reach Hall’s argument that the court was not authorized to order payment under § 3664(n). Hall’s motions for an evidentiary hearing, forensic analysis, and reconsideration of the court’s May 18, 2022, order denying appointment of counsel are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-30078
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.
