Lawrence McMichael Files Letter Motion on Restitution Stipulation in Hassan Nemazee Case

Hassan Nemazee filed a letter motion on December 27, 2022, addressed to Judge Sidney H. Stein, concerning a stipulation about restitution tied to a prior judgment. The motion, submitted by Nemazee's counsel Lawrence McMichael, included a proposed order outlining the terms of the restitution agreement.

The filing references document number 66, which appears to be the underlying judgment that the restitution stipulation seeks to modify or clarify. The court and docket number remain unspecified, but the case remains active under Judge Stein's supervision.

The motion signals ongoing negotiations or disputes over the financial obligations imposed on Nemazee following the judgment. Restitution in federal cases often involves precise calculations and agreements on payment schedules or amounts, suggesting the parties are attempting to formalize these details through the stipulation.

The inclusion of a proposed order indicates Nemazee is asking the court to approve the terms without further litigation.

No public record shows the court's response or whether the stipulation has been accepted. The absence of docket details limits insight into the broader procedural posture, but the filing date and the judge's involvement confirm the matter is active and pending resolution. Nemazee's legal team appears to be seeking a clear, enforceable arrangement to satisfy restitution requirements.

This filing follows prior proceedings that culminated in the judgment referenced as document 66. The restitution stipulation likely addresses either the amount owed or the method of payment, common issues in post-judgment enforcement. The case's future hinges on Judge Stein's review and approval of the proposed terms, which will dictate Nemazee's financial obligations moving forward.

Watch for Judge Stein's ruling on the proposed restitution stipulation. That decision will clarify whether the court accepts the parties' agreement or requires further briefing or hearings. The ruling will shape the enforcement phase and could trigger additional motions if the stipulation is rejected or modified.