United States of America v. Moorthy Srinivasan Ram

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6401
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOORTHY SRINIVASAN RAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00020-HEH-RCY-1)
Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: May 13, 2025
Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Moorthy Srinivasan Ram, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
In 2009, Moorthy Srinivasan Ram pleaded guilty to bank fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1344. The court sentenced Ram to 87 months of imprisonment and, pursuant to
the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the court ordered
Ram to pay $87,742.15 in restitution. After Ram failed to make his restitution payments,
the Treasury Department began garnishing Ram’s monthly Social Security payments to go
toward his remaining restitution balance.
In 2023, Ram filed his third motion to eliminate or reduce his restitution payments.
Ram alleged—as he did in his first and second motions—that his disability prevented him
from working and his personal costs, particularly medical expenses, exceeded the amount
he received from Social Security payments. He argued he would be unable to pay his
necessary expenses if his Social Security payments continued to be garnished, and he asked
that the court either eliminate his restitution liability entirely or reduce his monthly
payments to $100. The district court denied Ram’s motion, finding that the court did not
have the authority to change Ram’s restitution under the MVRA. Ram appealed.
We review a district court’s decision whether to modify a defendant’s restitution
order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Grant, 715 F.3d 552, 557 (4th Cir. 2013).
“A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider
judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous
factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” Id. at 557.
Here, the district court found that it did not have authority to grant Ram’s request.
The MVRA mandates restitution in the full amount of the victim’s loss caused by bank

-- 2 of 3 --

3
fraud, irrespective of a defendant’s financial ability to pay. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A; United
States v. Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201, 207 (4th Cir. 2017). But the MVRA does authorize the
court to modify a defendant’s restitution payment schedule if the court finds that there has
been a “material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances” that affects his ability
to pay restitution according to his existing payment schedule. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k); see
Grant, 715 F.3d at 559. Therefore, the district court’s finding that it could not modify
Ram’s payment schedule relied on an erroneous legal premise.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand the case to allow the
court to review Ram’s motion consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k).∗ We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
∗ By this decision, we express no opinion on the ultimate outcome of Ram’s motion
to eliminate or reduce restitution.

-- 3 of 3 --