United States District Court, E.D. California
MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney JEFFREY A. SPIVAK
Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
COMPENTENCY EVALUATION; AND GRANTING UNITED STATES’
MOTION FOR RESTITUTION
JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
2, 2017, the United States filed a motion for restitution,
requesting that the Court order restitution in the amount of
$54,275.98, based on a restitution report prepared by United
States Postal Inspector Michael Chavez, filed with the
governmentâs motion for restitution. (ECF #475).
May 2017 and May 2018, the Defendant sought and obtained two
continuances of the restitution hearing. (ECF #480, 494).
22, 2018, the Court issued an order, setting the restitution
hearing for December 4, 2018. (ECF #503). The Court ordered
Defendant to file any opposition to the United States’
restitution memorandum by September 4, 2018, and the United
States to file any reply by September 18, 2018. In the order,
the Court gave notice to the parties that it reserved the
right to decide the United States’ motion for
restitution on the briefs and without a hearing. Id.
August 2, 2018, Defendant filed a 365-page opposition. (ECF
September 18, 2018, the United States submitted a reply to
the Defendant’s opposition. (ECF #511). The reply noted
that further research was necessary on Defendant’s
Objection #7 (whether the restitution request involving
Barclays Bank and Redline Auto Parts impermissibly double
counted two victims), but requested the Court otherwise
overrule the remainder of the Defendant’s objections.
November 19, 2018, Defendant filed a notice of
hospitalization and requested a six month continuance. (ECF
#519). The Court granted the request, and reset the hearing
to June 4, 2019. (ECF #520).
13, 2019, the United States filed an opposition to the motion
to continue and a revised restitution request. (ECF #529). In
the opposition, the United States addressed the double
counting Objection #7 issue raised in Defendant’s
August 2, 2018 opposition, asked the Court to reduce the
Barclays Bank restitution claim by $1,653.97. In the filing,
the government submitted a revised restitution request.
22, 2019, the Court found good cause for a further
continuance of the restitution hearing, and continued the
hearing to September 24, 2019.
3. 2019, Defendant filed an opposition to the revised
restitution request. (ECF #535). He indicated that he opposed
the restitution requests for American Express, Barclays Bank,
and Elavon. Id.
September 4, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for competency
evaluation. (ECF #536). This would be his second competency
evaluation. On November 8, 2013, this Court previously
ordered a competency evaluation for Defendant, and ordered
Defendant competent on April 1, 2014 after a hearing. (ECF
Court, having reviewed the filings by the parties, including
Defendant’s objections to the United States’