UNITED STATES v. Alliance Bank of Arizona, a division of Western Alliance Bank; et al., Real-parties-in-interest. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-22No. No. 20-10355

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's order granting the government's motions for garnishment disposition, finding that Christenson's objections were untimely and that even addressing the objections on their merits, the government had properly followed the required procedures and possessed authority to collect criminal restitution through garnishment.

Gary Christensen appealed a district court order permitting the government to garnish funds from his bank accounts to satisfy a criminal restitution obligation under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act. Christensen filed objections to the garnishment writs, but the district court found these objections were submitted too late and that Christenson offered no valid explanation for the delay. The appeals court examined whether the district court properly denied the objections and granted the government's garnishment request.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Timeliness of objections to garnishment writs
Government authority to collect criminal restitution via garnishment
Procedural compliance with the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act
Whether garnishment should be stayed pending challenge to underlying restitution order

Procedural posture

Christenson appealed pro se from a district court order granting the government's motions for garnishment disposition to collect criminal restitution.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Gary S. Christensen appeals pro se from the district courts order granting the governments motions for garnishment disposition under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(7), to satisfy Christensens restitution obligation, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a), 3663A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court correctly found that Christensens objections to the garnishment writs were untimely filed, and Christensen had provided no good cause or excusable neglect for the delay. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). Therefore, the district court did not err by denying the objections and granting the governments motions for disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(7) (“After the garnishee files an answer and if no hearing is requested within the required time period, the court shall promptly enter an order directing the garnishee as to the disposition of the judgment debtors nonexempt interest in such property.”).

In any event, Christensens objections to the garnishment, which he renews on appeal, also fail on the merits. Christensen has not shown that the district court erred in declining to stay the garnishment proceedings pending his challenge to the underlying restitution order. He has also failed to support his argument that the district courts partial grant of coram nobis relief affects the instant garnishment disposition order.

Christensens argument that the government lacks authority to collect criminal restitution also lacks merit. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a), (f); United States v. Mays, 430 F.3d 963, 965-67 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, contrary to Christensens contentions, the record indicates that the government properly satisfied the procedural requirements for pursuing garnishment under § 3205 of the FDCPA.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. During the pendency of this appeal, the district court granted in part Christensens petition for writ of error coram nobis, and lowered the amount of his restitution obligation. Christensen does not dispute the governments assertion that it has thus far collected approximately $383,620.24 from the garnishees and that its final collection will not exceed the amended restitution order, which sets Christensens revised restitution obligation at $783,272.19.