United States v. Caudle
3:13-cr-00154
E.D. Va.Jun 6, 2017Background
- Brandon Lee Caudle pleaded guilty in E.D. Va. (Sept. 10, 2013) to mail fraud and aggravated identity theft for crimes committed while incarcerated; the court imposed consecutive 24‑month sentences (total 48 months) and ordered $16,135.35 restitution to the IRS, payable immediately.
- While serving that sentence Caudle later committed additional mail fraud in Ohio and pleaded guilty in N.D. Ohio (July 15, 2016); that court sentenced him to 41 months consecutive and ordered $7,500.78 restitution (including non‑federal victims).
- Caudle moved pro se in E.D. Va. to modify the Virginia restitution order, arguing (1) the Virginia restitution should be subordinate to the Ohio restitution because Ohio victims are non‑federal and (2) his restitution payment percentage should be reduced for financial hardship.
- The government opposed the motion; the court decided the matter on the briefs and denied relief.
- The court treated restitution as a final judgment under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(o) and analyzed modification options under § 3664(o)(1)(D) and § 3664(k).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court must subordinate its restitution (IRS) to restitution ordered in a separate Ohio case for non‑federal victims | United States: § 3664(i) applies only within a single case; no subordination across cases | Caudle: § 3664(i) requires federal victim be paid after other (Ohio) non‑federal victims, so Ohio restitution should be satisfied first | Denied: § 3664(i) applies only to victims within the same case; cannot prioritize restitution orders from different cases |
| Whether Caudle's later Ohio restitution or his limited funds constitute a "material change in economic circumstances" permitting adjustment of payment percentage/schedule under § 3664(k) | United States: No material change; Ohio restitution is a self‑induced obligation and does not qualify under § 3664(k) | Caudle: Ohio restitution and resulting hardship justify reducing the percentage of income applied to Virginia restitution | Denied: Defendant did not show a qualifying material change in circumstances under § 3664(k); self‑induced circumstances insufficient to modify restitution |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grant, 715 F.3d 552 (4th Cir. 2013) (modification of restitution requires a material change in economic circumstances under § 3664(k))
- United States v. Knight, [citation="315 Fed. App'x 435"] (3d Cir. 2009) (prison earnings and limited earning capacity do not constitute a material change warranting reduction of restitution)
- United States v. Banks, [citation="430 Fed. App'x 179"] (3d Cir. 2011) (self‑induced changes in circumstances do not typically satisfy the material change standard)