United States v. Michael Ramer, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8983

Michael Ramer convicted after a bench trial of conspiracy to commit wire fraud for a sham investment scheme that solicited over $1 million and failed to invest as promised.
District court sentenced Ramer to 42 months imprisonment, $1,077,500 restitution, 3 years supervised release, and a special condition requiring restitution payments “at a rate of not less than $100 per month.”
On appeal Ramer argued only that the district court erred by not conditioning restitution payments on his ability to pay.
While the Government brief was pending, the district court amended the judgment (on the parties’ joint request) to state the $100/month supervised-release payment is “conditioned on” Ramer’s ability to pay.
The court analyzed whether it retained jurisdiction to modify supervised-release conditions after a notice of appeal and concluded, following the First Circuit, that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) authorizes modification while a direct appeal is pending.
Because the district court granted the relief Ramer sought, the Seventh Circuit held the appeal moot and dismissed it; the opinion also notes a clerical error in the judgment (labeling the offense as wire fraud rather than conspiracy) that may be corrected under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution payments on supervised release should be conditioned on ability to pay / whether district court could modify condition after appeal filed	Ramer asked remand to make restitution payments on supervised release dependent on ability to pay	Government: appeal is moot because district court amended the judgment to condition $100/month on ability to pay; district court properly retained jurisdiction to modify supervised-release conditions	Court held district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) to modify conditions while appeal pending; because relief was granted, appeal is moot and dismissed

United States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 781 (7th Cir.) (general rule that filing notice of appeal divests district court of jurisdiction, with exceptions)
United States v. McHugh, 528 F.3d 538 (7th Cir.) (same principle regarding divestiture of jurisdiction)
United States v. Centracchio, 236 F.3d 812 (7th Cir.) (district court retains jurisdiction in limited circumstances despite interlocutory appeals)
United States v. Byrski, 854 F.2d 955 (7th Cir.) (appeal from frivolous motion does not divest district court of jurisdiction)
United States v. Cannon, 715 F.2d 1228 (7th Cir.) (notice of appeal challenging nonappealable order does not divest district court)
Terket v. Lund, 623 F.2d 29 (7th Cir.) (divestiture rule is judge-made and subject to exceptions)
United States v. D’Amario, 412 F.3d 253 (1st Cir.) (§ 3583(e)(2) permits district court to modify supervised-release conditions while direct appeal is pending)
Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149 (U.S.) (mootness principles where court cannot grant effective relief)
A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir.) (application of mootness doctrine)