United States v. Lloyd Carr

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6673 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6673

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LLOYD B. CARR, a/k/a Lloyd Carr,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (6:12-cr-00210-1)

Submitted: June 24, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd B. Carr, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6673 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Lloyd B. Carr appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) to adjust his restitution payment schedule. When a

defendant is ordered to pay restitution, and a “‘material change in the defendant’s economic

circumstances [] might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution,’” the district “court

is authorized to adjust the payment schedule ‘as the interests of justice require.’” United

States v. Grant, 715 F.3d 552, 554 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k)). We have

reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination to modify

Carr’s restitution payment schedule based on a material change in his economic

circumstances. See United States v. Sweatt, 85 F.4th 1240, 1241-42 (7th Cir. 2023) (stating

standard of review).

On appeal, Carr also contends that the district court judge should have recused

himself. Because Carr did not move the district court for recusal, we review his claim only

for plain error. See United States v. Chastain, 979 F.3d 586, 594 (8th Cir. 2020) (stating

standard of review). Carr fails to establish that recusal was required. See Belue v.

Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing valid bases for bias or

partiality motion); see also United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th Cir. 2008) (“The

presiding judge is not required to recuse himself simply because of unsupported, irrational

or highly tenuous speculation.” (cleaned up)).

Accordingly, we deny Carr’s motions to appoint counsel, and we affirm the district

court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6673 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED