United States of America v. Randy Lee Hall

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RANDY LEE HALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-30078
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00225-RSM-1
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-30078
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 of 2 --