United States v. Brian Aldrich Dupree
590 F. App'x 857
11th Cir.2014Background
- Dupree was convicted of conspiring to defraud the United States and the district court ordered full restitution, with the probation office directed to set a repayment plan (25% of gross income over $15,000/year).
- Dupree, incarcerated and later earning prison wages, moved to modify the restitution order to allow small, direct payments while imprisoned; he also alleged BOP was collecting from his account and sought clarification.
- While Dupree’s initial appeal of the judgment was pending, the district court entered an adjusted restitution order under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) requiring payment via the BOP Financial Responsibility Program and setting post-release supervision payments (monthly $150 + 25% of income above $1,250/month).
- Dupree filed a notice of appeal from the adjusted order; the district court treated the filing as a motion for reconsideration and then amended the adjusted order to require immediate payment or 30% of prison wages and reiterated the post-release schedule.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the district court had authority under § 3664(k) to adjust the restitution order based on Dupree’s changed finances, but vacated the adjusted and amended orders because the district court impermissibly delegated its mandatory duty to specify a payment schedule to the Bureau of Prisons and because the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the order after Dupree’s appeal had divested it of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had authority to adjust the restitution order under § 3664(k) | Dupree claimed changed finances justified an adjustment to allow prison-wage payments | Government argued the court could adjust under § 3664(k) given changed circumstances | Court: Yes; district court had authority to adjust under § 3664(k) based on Dupree’s changed economic circumstances |
| Whether the adjusted order unlawfully delegated the duty to set a payment schedule to the Bureau of Prisons | Dupree argued the order left timing/amount to BOP, impermissibly delegating a judicial duty | Government defended using BOP Financial Responsibility Program to collect prison wages | Court: Vacated adjusted order—judicial duty to specify manner and schedule is nondelegable (delegation to BOP invalid) |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to amend the adjusted order after Dupree filed a notice of appeal | Dupree argued his notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction | Government treated the filing as a motion for reconsideration | Court: District court lacked jurisdiction to amend after notice of appeal; the appeal divested the district court of control |
| Whether procedural requirements of § 3664(k) (notice to AG and victim certification) were followed | Dupree noted potential failures in procedural notifications/certification | Government did not show certification/notice in the record | Court: Noted record lacks evidence the statutory notification/certification duties were satisfied; remand for proper consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Shewchun v. United States, 797 F.2d 941 (11th Cir. 1986) (notice of appeal divests district court of jurisdiction over matters involved in the appeal)
- United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2002) (district court’s duty to specify restitution schedule is nondelegable)
- United States v. Diveroli, 729 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) (filing a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court)
- Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2003) (§ 3664(k) adjustment appropriate where bona fide change in financial condition exists)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural standard for counsel’s motion to withdraw on appeal)