Case: 12-10163 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10163
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20425-MGC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE L. CAZAS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 25, 2012)
Before CARNES, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10163 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 2 of 3
Jose Cazas appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se “motion for
reconsideration of restitution pursuant to Rule 60(b),” which followed his
conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349. Cazas contends that the district court erred in failing to
construe his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Rule 60(b)) motion as a
motion under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA).
The district court did not err in denying Cazas’s motion on the basis of a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, given that Rule 60(b) provides no relief in criminal
proceedings. See United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998).
Moreover, Cazas’s contention that the district court erred in failing to construe his
motion as one brought under the MVRA is without merit because, even liberally
construed, Cazas’s motion did not state grounds for relief under the MVRA.
Specifically, Cazas’s motion did not make any argument regarding changed
economic circumstances that affected his ability to pay. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k);
Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, to the
extent Cazas was attempting to challenge the district court’s calculation of
restitution, his motion did not raise any exceptional circumstances that would
excuse his failure to challenge the calculation on direct appeal or to raise the
arguments advanced by his motion at his restitution hearing. See Cani, 331 F.3d
2
Case: 12-10163 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 3 of 3
at 1215. Thus, we affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
3