United States District Court, D. Minnesota
B. SCHOMMER, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF.
T. MUSTAFA, PRO SE DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ADJUST AND MOTION TO SEAL
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE
October 2016, Petitioner Kanan T. Mustafa pled guilty to one
count of conspiracy to engage in interstate transportation of
goods pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1029(a)(2),
2314 and one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 286. (Plea Agreement
¶¶ 2, Oct. 27, 2016, Docket No. 918.) As part of a
plea agreement, Mustafa agreed to cooperate with the United
States and, in exchange, received a reduced sentence of 130
months' imprisonment. (Id. ¶ 15; Sentencing
J. at 2, June 27, 2017, Docket No. 1086.) The Court also
ordered Mustafa to pay, jointly and severally with
co-defendants, restitution in the amount of $1, 015, 901.33,
commencing with payments of not less than $25.00 quarterly
or, if employed in a UNICOR job, fifty percent of his wages
during his period of imprisonment. (Sentencing J. at 6.)
February and May, 2018, Mustafa filed three post-sentencing
motions: (1) a motion to compel the United States to file a
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion for a reduced
sentence; (Mot. to Compel, Feb. 26, 2018, Docket No. 1217);
(2) a motion asking the Court to correct a perceived judicial
error in sentencing him to consecutive rather than concurrent
sentences under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36; (Mot.
to Correct Errors, Apr. 12, 2018, Docket No. 1227); and (3) a
motion seeking subpoenas to obtain information from the
Minneapolis Police Department; (Mot. for Issuance of Subpoena
Duces Tecum, May 23, 2018, Docket No. 1237). This Court
denied all three Motions on July 6, 2018. (Mem. Op. &
Order (“Order”), July 6, 2018, Docket No. 1256.)
before the Court are two motions brought by Mustafa. First,
Mustafa moves to adjust his restitution payment schedule
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). (Mot. to Adjust
Restitution Order at 1, Oct. 26, 2018, Docket No. 1323.)
Second, Mustafa asks the Court to seal the Court's July
6, 2018 Order. (Mot. to Seal Doc., Nov. 26, 2018, Docket No.
1327.) Because Mustafa has not shown a change in his economic
circumstances since sentencing or good cause to seal the
Order, the Court will deny the Motions.
Motion to Adjust Restitution Payment Schedule
now moves to adjust his restitution payment schedule pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). Mustafa states that he is
concerned he will be unable to make the required restitution
payments during the remaining period of his incarceration and
believes that his scheduled payments are disproportionate to
his monthly wages. As such, he asks the Court to adjust his
payment schedule to no more than $25.00 quarterly.
3664(k) “authorizes federal district courts to modify
the terms of a previously-imposed restitution order-but only
when there has been a ‘material change in the
defendant's economic circumstances that might affect the
defendant's ability to pay restitution.'”
United States v. Williams, 2007 WL 1424663, at *2
(D. Minn. May 10, 2007) (quoting United States v.
Vanhorn, 399 F.3d 884, 886 (8th Cir. 2005)).
Mustafa cites general concerns about being unable to make the
required restitution payments while in prison, and vaguely
alludes to possible changes in his family's economic
circumstances that could affect his finances in the future.
But these concerns, however genuine, do not reflect a
material change in Mustafa's economic circumstances.
(See Cani v. U.S., 331 F.3d 1210 (11th
Cir. 2003) (finding no material change in economic
circumstances where the defendant cited concerns about
potential changes to his economic circumstances in the future
and the consequences of failing to comply with his
restitution payment schedule.) Indeed, the Court took these
and all other required factors into consideration when
establishing a payment schedule at the time of sentencing. As
such, the Court will deny Mustafa's Motion to Adjust the
Restitution Order pursuant to § 3664(k).
Motion to Seal
Mustafa moves to seal this Court's Order dated July 6,
2018, pursuant to L.R. 49.1(d)(1). The Court has considered
defendant's safety concerns and the public's interest
in keeping court orders accessible. The Court finds that any
risk to defendant's personal safety resulting from
keeping the Order public is minimal and not so serious as to
justify sealing it. As such, the Court will deny
Mustafa's Motion to Seal.
on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings