Dist.Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to reconsider aspects of his initial restitution order totaling $1,053,572.04 that had been entered in 2010 and affirmed on direct appeal in 2013. Record showed that: (1) defendant made no objection to restitution obligations when Dist. Ct. initially imposed them; (2) defendant raised no issue in 2014 regarding restitution obligations when he filed motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 USC 2255; and (3) Dist. Ct. had previously granted in 2016 govt. motion to essentially reduce defendant’s restitution obligation with respect to one victim in underlying criminal action. One issue raised in instant appeal was not raised in Dist. Ct., and thus was waived. Moreover, both issues raised on appeal should have been presented at time of defendant’s original sentencing and on his direct appeal. Fact that govt. obtained amendment to restitution order in 2016 did not open door to defendant raising any challenge to original restitution order. Ct. further noted that while govt. may not have had authority to file motion seeking March 2016 amendment to restitution order, defendant did not file timely appeal from March 2016 order amending restitution order.
