United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Paul Trammell
Moore's (“Defendant”) pro se Motion
to Terminate Fine  (“Motion”).
19, 2007, Defendant was sentenced in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to one
hundred forty-four (144) months incarceration with five (5)
years of supervised release, after being found guilty by a
jury of Conspiracy to Distribute and Possession with Intent
to Distribute Cocaine and Cocaine Base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. ([1.3]).
The Court imposed a fine of $12, 000.00. (Id. at 5).
14, 2013, this Court accepted jurisdiction of this matter and
the case was transferred to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia. ().
March 17, 2017, Defendant filed his pro se Motion to
Terminate Fine. Defendant states that he has paid over ninety
(90) percent of his fine obligation and requests that the
Court excuse the remaining balance. (Mot.). Defendant states
that he has recently been making “triple”
payments toward his fine, but that his wife is not working
and his “job is slow.” (Id.).
April 6, 2017, the Government filed its Response in
Opposition to Defendant's Motion . The Government
states that the Court should deny the Motion because the
Court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the remaining fine
balance. The Government argues that the dismissal of the
remaining fine balance would constitute a modification to the
sentence, which the Court is not authorized to do in this
situation. The Government also included Defendant's
payment history toward his fine. ([6.2]). As of March 31,
2017, there is a balance of $3, 013.23 remaining on the fine.
Court is permitted to modify a Defendant's sentence,
after it has been imposed, only where expressly permitted by
18 U.S.C. § 3582 (“Section 3582”).
United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194-95
(11th Cir. 2010). The Court lacks “inherent
power” to re-sentence a defendant. Id. at
3582 authorizes the modification of a sentence
(1) where the Bureau of Prisons has filed a motion and either
extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction or
the defendant is at least 70 years old and meets certain
other requirements; (2) where another statute or Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 35 expressly permits a sentence
modification; or (3) where a defendant has been sentenced to
a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that was
subsequently lowered by the Commission and certain other
requirements are met.
Id. at 1195 (internal citation omitted) (citing 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)).
fine is an independent part of a defendant's sentence,
” and is not a condition of supervised release.
United States v. Akinrosotu, 637 F.3d 165, 167 (2d
Cir. 2011). A district court does not have the authority to
modify or dismiss a fine under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 which
“allows a district court, in certain instances, to
modify, reduce, or enlarge the conditions of supervised
release.” United States v. Morales, 328 F.3d
1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). A
district court may modify the payment schedule of a fine upon
notice from a defendant “of ...