United States of America v. Peters

Filing 1

ORDER TRANSFERRING WRIT OF EXECUTION PROCEEDING TO THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA signed by District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 5/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment). (Lundstrom, T).

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 773 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/07/2013 Page 1 of 2

UN I
TED STA TES DI
STRI T C O U RT
C
SO U TH ER N D I
STRI T O F FLO R I A
C
D
CA SE N o.1160273- - I I RO ULEA S
CR D M T
UN I
TED STA TES O F A M ERI ,
CA

FI by
LED

Pl i if
a ntf ,

D.
C.

JUN 27 2 1
23
s'EveN M IARI
r
- MORE

CL Kt i al' cT.
ER , sr
s. o F i, MIMS
o. fp - X
t

D A LE PETER S,

De e nt
f nda ,

A M EN DED A PPL I A TI N FO R W m T O F EX ECU TI N I
C
O
O

Purua t t Fe r Deb Cole on Pr dur Ad,28 U. C.j3203,t Pl ntf,
s nt o he deal t ldi oce es
S.
he ai if
t Unie St es of Am e i a, by t unde s gne A s i t nt U nie St t A tor y f t
he
t d at
rc
he
r i d ssa
t d a es t ne or he
Sout r Di t i tof Fl i ,he eby a i f t i s
he n sr c
or da r
pples or he s uanc of a W rt of Exe t o .l s
e
i
cu i n n uppor
t
oft s Applv ton, he U nie St t s a s r s t f l w i
hi
ia i t
t d a e s e t he olo ng:
On Fe ua y 1 2013, t e t ent r a Am e d J m e a i t t
br r 2,
he our
e ed n
nde udg nt ga ns he

de e nt DALE PETERS,ncudi a or rofr siuton i t a
f nda ,
i l ng n de
e tt i n he mountof$5, 039. a
362, 69, nd

a ase s ntof$3, 00, ussaut ' itr tpurua t 1 U. C.j3 2( 743)
n s s me
200. pl tt ol nees s nt o 8 S. 61 DE
y
.
To da e,t de e ntha notm a a pa e s t a ds t f goi c i i l
t he f nda
s
de ny ym nt ow r he or ng r m na

de .
bt
The e i pr r y i w hi h t de or has pos es i cus ody,or e r ,a i
r s ope t n
c he bt
s son, t
ontol nd n

whih t de orhasa s t nta none
c he bt
ubsa i l
xempti e e twhi h m a be lvi d u f pa ntof
nt r s
c
y
e e pon or yme

t ea v j dg n . ep o ryi d s rb da f lws
h bo e u me t Th rpet s e c ie s ol :
o

l i Ame d d Ap l ai nc re t v ro ss rv ne ' e r r i t eo ii a ( . 770)
Ths n e p i to o r c s a iu c ie rs r o s n h rg n l DE
c
1

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 773 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/07/2013 Page 2 of 2

The de e nt s Soci l Sec iy N um ber i X X X - X - 494 a hi l t know n
f nda '
a
urt
s
X 1
nd s as
a e si
ddr s s:
221 Sou h Fr ontSt e t
t em
re
Apt 306
.
San M at CA 94401
eo,

W HEREFORE,t Unie Stt s r pe tuly r quess t t t Cour i s a W rt of
he
t d a e es c f l e t ha he
t s ue
i
Exec i i ac or nce w ih t Fe a D e C olec i Pr dur s A c of 1
uton n c da
t he der l bt l ton oce e
t
990.A pr
opos d
e
W r tofExe uton i a t c d.
i
c i s ta he
D at June 7,2013
ed:
M i i FL
am ,

Res f l s it
pectuly ubm ted,

WI
FRED O A .FERRER
UN I
TED STA TES A TTO

EY

By:
C aros Raur l
l
el
A ssit U . Atonw y
s ant S. t
99 N .E.4t St eet #300
h r ,
M i m i FL 331 211
a ,
32-

Te No.305)9619243
l (
Fa No. 3 )530- 93
x ( 05
71
Fl r da Ba N o.5 93
oi
r
298

E- i: al srurl@ u d jg v
mal c ro . el s o .o
a

2

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 774 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/07/2013 Page 1 of 4

UN ITED STA TES D I
STRIC T C O U RT
SO U TH ER N D I
STRI T O F FLO R I
C
DA
CA SE N o.1160273- R- IM I R O ULEA S
C D
T
UN I
TED STA TES OF A M ERI ,
CA
Pl ntf ,
ai if

FI by
LED

-- D.C.
''

JUN g? 2 1
23
STEVEN M . L MORE
ARI
CLERK U s D, rcr
s'

D A LE PETER S,

s, o / $, Ml .
D. f L - kMl

De e nt
f nda ,
/
A M E ND ED W RI O F EXE CU TI N '
T
O
T O : TH E U N I D STA TES M AR SH A L
TE

O n Febr r 1 201 a Am e d J m e w as e e e i t U nie St t D i ti t
ua y 2, 3, n
nde udg nt
nt r d n he
t d a es s rc
Cour f t Sout r D i t i tofFl i i f voroft U nie St t ofA m erc pl ntf ,a
t or he
he n sr c
orda, n a
he t d a es
i a, ai i f nd
aga ns t de e
i t he f ndantD al Pe e s l tknown a e s i 221 Sou h Fr m o St e t A pt 3 Sa
e t r , as
ddr s s
t e nt r e , . 06, n

M a e CA 9
t o,
4401,i udi a or r of r tt i i t a ountof$5, 2, 9. and a
. ncl ng n de
esiuton n he m
36 03 69,
n
as es mentof$3, 00, ussaut y i er s .
s s
200. pl t t or nt e t

NOW ,THEREFORE,YOU AlE HEREBY COM M ANDED t s tsy tej d me t
t
o aif h u g n
by lvyi on and s li t pr ry i whih t de enda ha a s tntalnone m p
e ng
e lng he ope t n
c he f nt s ubsa i
xe t

itrs whc ma b lve u o frpa me to tea o ej d me t d s rb da f lo :
ne e t ih y e e id p n o y n f h b v u g n , e ci e s ol ws
21 Chrs ophe Cic e
065
it r r l
Sonora,CA 95370

' sAme d dWrt fEx c to rplcsa dspesd st o iia Wrto Ex c t n( 7 )
Thi
n e io e uin e a e n u re e he rgn l i f e ui DE. 71
o
1

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 774 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/07/2013 Page 2 of 4

YO U ARE FURTHER COM M ANDED t tt lvy a s l s l note ee pr ry
ha he e nd ae hal
xc d ope t

ra o bye uv ln i v let tea g e aea u to t ej dg n a dc s.
e s na l q iae t n au o h g rg t mo n f h u me t n o t
NOTI TO DEBTOR PURSUANT TO 28U. C.j3202 (
CE
S.
b)

Yo aeh r b n tfe t a t ep o rys b e t ot eW rto Ga ns me to Ex c to
u r e e y oiid h t h r pet u j c t h i f r ih n r e uin
i beng tke by t Unied Stt Govemme ,whih has a e tj menti t a
s i a n
he t aes
l nt c
our udg
n he bove
ca i d ca e asm or f l de c i i t W rt
ptone s ,
e uly s rbed n he i .

l addii you a e he e notted t tt e a e e m pto unde t 1 whi m a
n
ton,
r r by ii ha her r xe i ns
r he aw
ch y

p o e ts meo t i p o e t fo b i gtk nb teUntd Sae Go en n i t j dg n
r tc o f hs r p ry r m en a e y h i tts v r me t f he u me t
e
de orca s
bt
n how t tt e mptons a y. Beow i a s
ha he xe i
ppl
l s umm a y oft e m pto whih ma
r
he xe i ns c
y
aPPl
y:

Exe ptonsava l bl unde t l w s oft St t ofFl r da a e ge r l nota ia e t
m i
ia e
r he a
he a e
o i r ne aly
va l bl o

afdea ci n lu me td b o i p o e dn c mme c d u d rteFe ea De tCo lcin
e rl rmia j dg n e tr n r c e igs o n e n e h d rl b le to
Pr dur Ac . Thef lwi pr pet i,ho ve,e mptfom lvy underfdea lw:( )
oee es t
olo ng o ry s we r xe
r e
e rl a 1
weai a r a shoolboo '( f l pl sons f niur a pes lef t'( books
rng ppael nd c
ks 2) ue, ovii , ur t e nd rona fecs 3)
,
,
a t sofata busne s orpr esi ( une oyme beness ( )undei rd mal
nd ool
rdc, i s ,
of son; 4) mpl nt ft' 5
,
lvee i;

( cet n a t and pe i pa nt 1,( wor n' c
6) rai nnuiy
nson yme s 7) kme s ompe ai ( j
ns ton; 8) udgme s f
nt or
'

s
uppol ofmi e l en'( a mi mum e mpin f wa s s lr a ot ri
'
t
nor hidr , 9) ni
xe to or ge , aay nd he ncome'( 0)
,1

eeti s r ieeonne t dia lt pa nt' a ( 1 a ssa unde t J b Tri ng
ran e vc ced s biiy yme s nd 1 ) sitnce
,
r he o ani
Part hi A ct
ners p
.

l y uaet ej d me td b o , o h v arg tt a ktec u tort l y u p o et t
f o r h u g n e t r y u a e ih o s h o r t eum o r r p ry o
you i you t nk t pr ' t G ove nm e i t ng qualf e unde one of t a
f
hi he opely he
t
r nt s aki
ii s
r
he bove

1Thes ar annuiy orpe onpa nt u rt Rair d Retr me Ac, be isu t Rair d
e e
t
nsi yme s nde he loa
ie nt t neft nder he loa
Une oyme I ur nc Ac,s ilpe i pa
mpl nt ns a e t peca nson yment r eiedby ape s n wh enameha bee e e e ont
s ec v
r o os
s n ntr d he
Ar Navy,Ai Fo ce a Coa tGuad M e ofHonorr l a a te ba e onr tr orr ti rpa unde
my,
r r , nd s
r dal
ol, nd nnuiis s d eied eane y
r
c er73oftte 1 oft Unie Stt Code.
hapt
il 0 he td aes

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 774 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/07/2013 Page 3 of 4

e m ptons or i you t nk you do notow e t m one t t Unie St t Gove nm e t t i
xe i
f
hi
he
y o he
t d a es
r nt ha t
s you do.
ays
l you w a a hea i you m us notf t c tw ihi 20 days a t r y r c ve t s
f
nt
rng,
t iy he our t n
f e ou e ei hi
notc You m us m a you r ques i w rtng,a eiher m ai i or delver i i pe s t t
i e.
t ke
r e
t n ii
nd t
lt
i t n r on o he

cer oft eour a Unie Stt Diti Cour,400 N.M i mi Ave. 8 h Fl r M im i FL
l k
he
t t td aes srd
t
a
, t oo , a ,
331 Y ou m ay s a c
28.
end opy of your r que t t t Unie St t Ator y' Of i e a 99 N .
e s o he t d a es t ne s fc t
E.
4t St e t M i m i Fl i 331 s t G ove m e w ilknow you w a a he r ng. The hea i
h r e , a , orda
32, o he
m nt l
nt a i
rng
wilt pl e w ihi 5 da a t rt c e k r c ves yo r
l ake ac t n
ys f e he l r e ei
ur eque t i you a k f i t t pl c
s, f
s or t o ake a e
t tqui kl oras s afe t taspos i e
ha
c y,
oon t r ha
s bl .

At t heai you ma e an t t j
he rng
y xpli o he udge why you beive t pr pet t
le he o ry he
Gove nm e has t ke i e m pt or w hy you t nk you do not o e t m one t t
r nt
a n s xe
hi
w he
y o he

Gove me . l you do notr que t a hea i wihi 20 da of r cevi t s no i ,your
m nt f
e s
rng t n
ys
e i ng hi tce
pr pe t m a be s d a t pa e us t a d t m one you o e t G ove nm e .
o ry y
ol nd he ym nt ed ow r he
y
w he
r nt

l y ut n y ulv o ti et eFe e a j iil iti i whc tec u'i l e td y u
f o hik o ie u sd h d r ludca d srd n ih h o l s o ae , o
t
m a r s ,no lt t 20 da afe yo r ceve t snote t tt spr e ngt t your
y eque t t aer han
ys tr u e i hi ie, ha hi oc edi o ake

p o rybeta ser db t c u tot eFe e a j d ca d src i whc y ur sd . u mu t
r pet r n fre y he o r t h d rl u iil itit n ih o e ie Yo s
m a yourr que ti wrtng,a e t r m a li ordelve i i pe s t t cl r oft c ta
ke
e s n ii
nd ihe
i t
i r t n r on o he e k he our t

Unie St t Diti tCour,400 N .M i miAve. 8 h Fl ,M i mi Flrda 331 . You m us
t d aes src
t
a
, t oor a , o i
28
t
al s a copy of your r
so end
eques t t Unied St es A tonw y' O fi at 99 N .E.4t St eet
t o he
t
at
t
s fee
h r ,

M i i Fl i 331 s t Gove n e w ilknow you w a t pr ee ng t be t a f r d.
am , orda
32, o he
r m nt l
nt he oc di o r ns er e
Be s e t ke a copy of t s notc f yo own r c ds l you ha a ques i
ur o ep
hi
i e or ur
e or . f
ve ny
tons

a
boutyourrght oraboutt spr dur ,you s d c a ta lw y r a ofi e ofpublc l gal
i s
hi oce e
houl ontc a e , n fc
i e

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 774 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/07/2013 Page 4 of 4

as itnc ort c e k oft c t Thec e k i no pe mit t gi l ga a c butca r f r
s sa e, he l r
he our.
l r s t r ted o ve e l dvi e,
n ee
you t ot s ces ofi orm aton.
o her our
nf
i

.

1
1

.
,

oox:Axo oRonpso i a esa a , oia ti y ûa , p' , 01
nch mb r tvimiylrd ,hs
yo
z-2 3

STEVEN M .LA RI O RE
M
C LERK O F CO UR T
UN I
TED STA TES D I
STRI CO U RT
CT
By:
D eput Cl k
y er

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 792 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2013 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 11-60273-CR-DIMITROULEAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DALE PETERS,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
DEFENDANT PETERS’ RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION (DE#773) AND THE AMENDED WRIT OF
EXECUTION (DE#774), DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND TO TRANSFER
PROCEEDINGS TO THE DISTRICT WHEREIN DEFENDANT RESIDES
COMES NOW the Defendant, DALE PETERS, by and through undersigned
appointed counsel as requested by Defendant, and hereby filed his responses to the
amended application and amended writ of execution filed in this case, and as grounds
therefore, says:
Undersigned counsel was appointed to represent Defendant in his criminal case
(Case No. 11-60273) through sentencing (February 1, 2013). Upon filing Defendant’s
Notice Of Appeal of his conviction and sentence (DE#732), undersigned counsel was
appointed to represent Defendant/Appellant in his direct appeal presently pending
before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Case No. 13-10602-C).

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 792 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2013 Page 2 of 4

On or about June 7, 2013, the government filed its Amended Application For
Writ Of Execution (DE#773) regarding certain property located in San Mateo,
California, and purportedly in the possession, custody or control of Defendant,
seeking a writ of execution to satisfy the order of restitution and special assessment
entered in the court’s Amended Judgment dated February 12, 2013. On June 7, 2013,
the same date the government filed its application, a deputy clerk of this court entered
the Amended Writ Of Execution (DE#774), advising that the government is seeking
to take Defendant’s property in satisfaction of the judgment of restitution and special
assessment. Undersigned counsel forwarded a copy of the pleadings to the Defendant,
who is incarcerated in a federal facility located in Atwater, California.
The Defendant has requested undersigned counsel to file this Response and
objection to the taking of any property, that such is exempt from levy and sale, that
Defendant is presently appealing his conviction and the sentence of imprisonment and
imposition of restitution and the special assessment, and thus no final order exists for
such levy and taking, and that the property subject to levy not be sold, rather, returned
to Defendant, and further that a Hearing is specifically demanded by Defendant, and,
because Defendant presently resides outside the district of this court, that any
proceedings herein be transferred to the federal judicial district in which he resides.
By this pleading, as friend of court and on behalf of Defendant pro se,
undersigned counsel is not making an appearance to represent Defendant in this post-

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 792 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2013 Page 3 of 4

conviction collection proceeding, rather, counsel is notifying the government and the
Clerk of the Court of his request for a hearing, to transfer the proceedings to the
district in which he resides, and to object to any levy or taking of his property to
satisfy a non-final judgment of the district court.
All further correspondence, pleadings and/or Notices should be furnished to
Defendant personally at:
Dale Peters
No. 68015-097
USP Atwater
Camp Facility
P.O. Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301

WHEREFORE, based upon the above and foregoing, the Defendant, DALE
PETERS, files this response, objection, request for hearing and to transfer these
proceedings to the federal district of Atwater, California.

_________/S/______________
MICHAEL G. SMITH, ESQ.
For Defendant, pro se

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 792 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2013 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 1, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, and that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices
of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF, as well as to Defendant, Dale Peters, No.
68015-097, USP Atwater, Camp Facility, P.O. Box 019001, Atwater, CA, 95301.

___/s/ Michael G. Smith_______
MICHAEL G. SMITH, ESQ.
FBN 265802
[e-mail]
110 Tower, Suite 1970
110 Southeast Sixth Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
[phone] - Office
[phone] - Fax
For Dale PETERS, pro se

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 798 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2013 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 11-60273-CR-DIMITROULEAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.
DALE PETERS,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION,
REQUEST FOR HEARING AND CHANGE OF VENUE
Plaintiff, United States of America hereby responds to Defendant Dale Peters’ Response
to the Amended Writ of Execution [D.E. 792].

INTRODUCTION
On February 4, 2013, the Court convicted Defendant Dale Peters of conspiring to defraud
the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286, and presenting false and fictitious claims upon
the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287. See D.E. No. 718. Defendant Peters was
sentenced to serve 144 months in prison and pay $5,362,039.69 in restitution to the Internal
Revenue Service.
On June 7, 2013, to secure Defendant Peters’ payment of restitution, the United States
sought, and the Court issued, a Writ of Execution pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection
Procedures Act (28 U.S.C. § 3001, et seq.) for the levy of a home owned by Mr. Peters in
Sonora, California. See D.E. 773 and 774. On July 1, 2013, attorney Michael Smith filed a
response objecting to the Writ of Execution on Mr. Peters’ behalf. See D.E. 792. On July 18,

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 798 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2013 Page 2 of 6

2013, Mr. Peters, pro se, filed an affidavit in support of his objections to the Writ of Execuition.
Defendant Peters objects to the Writ of Execution because (1) his property is exempt
from levy, and (2)he is appealing his conviction and sentence and his financial obligations are
not final. Defendant Peters requests a hearing on his objections and asks that these proceedings
be transferred to California, where he is incarcerated. As explained below, Defendant Peters’
objections lack merit and these proceedings should not be transferred.
ARGUMENT
I.

Defendant Peters’ Real Property is Not Exempt from Levy

Defendant vaguely objects to the Writ of Execution on the grounds that the property at
issue is exempt from levy. Defendant Peters’ Affidavit suggests that Mr. Peters’ belief that his
property is exempt from levy is based on homestead protection under the laws of the State of
California. See D.E. 796, ¶ 14. As explained below, however, the exemptions available to a
criminal defendant debtor are extremely limited and exemptions provided by state law do not
apply to the government’s efforts to collect federal criminal restitution.
Under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”), an order for restitution “is a
lien in favor of the United States on all property and rights to property of the person fined as if
the liability of the person fined were a liability for tax assessed under the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.” 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c). The only property exemptions available to a criminal defendant
are those provided under the MVRA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a). The MVRA provides that the
United States may enforce a judgment imposing a fine and/or restitution against all property or
rights to property of the defendant except property exempt from levy for taxes pursuant to 26
U.S.C. §6334(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(10) and (12). Such exempt property is limited to (1)
wearing apparel and school books; (2) fuel, provisions, furniture and personal effects; (3) books

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 798 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2013 Page 3 of 6

and tools of a trade, business, or profession; (4) unemployment benefits; (5) undelivered mail;
(6) certain annuity and pension payments; (7) workmen’s compensation; (8) judgments for
support of minor children; (9) a minimum exemption for wages, salary and other income; (10)
certain service-connected disability payments; and (12) assistance under the Job Training
Partnership Act. See 26 U.S.C. §6334(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(10) and (12). Defendant’s
contrary suggestion notwithstanding, there is no exemption for a defendant’s homestead.
While the State of California may provide homestead protection under state law, the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides for the preemption of state statutes
that conflict with federal law. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. The United States Supreme Court has
specifically held that state homestead laws are preempted by federal tax collection laws. United
States v. Rogers, 461 U.S. 677, 701,(1983); United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190, 205 (1971).
Such laws are also preempted by federal laws regarding the collection of federal criminal
restitution. See, e.g., United States v. Hyde, 2007 WL 2253522 * 2 (1st Cir. Aug.6, 2007)
(addressing a defendant’s claim that the Massachusetts homestead exemption trumped the
government's authority to garnish the sale proceeds of his home to satisfy a federal restitution
order, the First Circuit held that garnishment of the proceeds was proper because the
government's lien was equivalent to a tax lien and that it is “well established that the Supremacy
Clause provides the underpinning for the Federal Government's right to sweep aside state-create
exemptions in the face of tax liability”). See also United States v. Lampien, 89 F.3d 1316, 1321
(7th Cir.1996) (“[I]f the Wisconsin homestead exemption applies to ... prevent any part of the
proceeds from the sale of [defendant's] home from being used to satisfy her restitution
obligation, the homestead exemption is void under the Supremacy Clause.”); and United States
v. Jaffe, 314 F.Supp.2d 216, 227 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (“Florida homestead law will not protect

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 798 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2013 Page 4 of 6

[defendant] with respect to his duty to provide restitution to his victim.”). Therefore, Defendant’s
property is not exempt from levy to satisfy his criminal monetary penalties.

II.

The Restitution Judgment Imposed is Enforceable Notwithstanding
Defendant’s Appeal of his Conviction and Sentence

As discussed above, a federal criminal judgment requiring payment of restitution creates
a lien in favor of the United States on all of the defendant’s property. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c).
Such a lien may be enforced immediately upon entry of the judgment. See, e.g., U.S. v.
Weissenbach, 2010 WL 2246177, *2 (W.D.N.C. June 2, 2010); United States v. Hanhardt, 2004
WL 3104827, *1 (N.D.Ill.). Defendant’s appeal of his conviction and sentence does not
automatically stay the defendant’s sentence, including restitution. While the District Court
(under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 38) or the Court of Appeals (under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 8) may stay a sentence providing for restitution, no such stay has been
issued in Defendant Peters’ case. Accordingly, the restitution judgment imposed against
Defendant Peters is enforceable notwithstanding his appeal.

III.

Transfer of These Proceedings is Not Appropriate

Although a provision of the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act allows a debtor to
seek transfer of a debt collection action to the district in which the debtor resides (see 28 U.S.C.
§3004(b)(2)), that right does not exist where the transfer would be inconsistent with other federal
laws. As demonstrated below, a transfer of debt collection proceedings in this criminal case
would be inconsistent with the Court's continuing jurisdiction and obligation to enforce its
criminally imposed judgment.
The FDCPA provides that, "[t]o the extent that another Federal law specifies procedures

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 798 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2013 Page 5 of 6

for recovering on . . . a judgment for a debt arising under such law, those procedures shall apply
to such . . . judgment to the extent those procedures are inconsistent with the [FDCPA]." 28
U.S.C. §3001(b). The specific procedures for recovering on a judgment for fines or restitution is
set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§3611-15 . Under those sections, the sentencing court retains jurisdiction
over the defendant and is empowered to ensure compliance with its judgments in a number of
specified ways. See18 U.S.C.A. § 3613A -- 3615. These include, inter alia, revocation of a
defendant’s probation or supervised release, resentencing, holding the defendant in contempt,
and sale of the defendant’s property. Transfer of the debt collection proceedings currently
pending against Defendant Peters’ property to California would be wholly inconsistent with the
procedures set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§3611-15 and the Court’s continuing jurisdiction to ensure
Defendant’s payment of the fines and restitution judgment imposed against him. See U.S. v.
Tedder, 2004 WL 415270, *1 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 26, 2004).
In giving sentencing courts continuing jurisdiction over defendants they have
sentenced, Congress anticipated that the courts would supervise compliance with
the judgments to which defendants are subject and take action at the government's
request if a defendant is in default. Allowing transfer of any part of the
enforcement proceedings would be inconsistent with the government's and the
court's obligation to insure that the defendant complies with his court-ordered
obligations.
Tedder, at *3.
The FDCPA specifically directs courts not to construe the Act in a way that would
"curtail or limit the right of the United States under any other Federal law . . . to collect any fine,
penalty, assessment, restitution, or forfeiture arising in a criminal case. " 28 U.S.C. §3003(b). A
transfer of the garnishment proceedings pending in this criminal action would do just that.
Therefore, the Court should deny Defendant’s request for a transfer of the garnishment
proceedings to California.

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 798 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2013 Page 6 of 6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff United States of America respectfully submits that the Court
should deny Defendant Peters' request for a transfer of the debt collection efforts against him and
dismiss Defendant's objections to the issuance of the Writ of Execution.

Dated: July 25, 2013
Miami, Florida

Respectfully submitted,
WIFREDO A. FERRER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By:
/s/ Carlos Raurell
Carlos J. Raurell
Assistant U. S. Attorney
Florida Bar No. 529893
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document was filed with the
Clerk of the Court via CM/ECF on July 25, 2013 and mailed to Defendant Dale Peters,
68015-097, Atwater USP, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box 019001, Atwater, CA 95301.

/s/ Carlos Raurell
Carlos Raurell
Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 799 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2013 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO. 11-60273-CR-DIMITROULEAS

Plaintiff,
vs.
DALE PETERS,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Peters’ July 1, 2013 Response to the
Amended Application for Writ of Execution. [DE-792]. The Court has received a response
from the Government [DE-798]. The Court agrees with the Government’s response. Defendant
Peters’ real property is not exempt from levy. U.S. v. Hosking, 567 F. 3d 329 (7th Cir. 2009).
Peter’s appeal is pending, but the restitution order has not been stayed.
Transfer of the proceedings is not appropriate.
The Government’s Amended Application for For Writ of Execution [DE-773] is Granted.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this
25th day of July, 2013.

Case 0:11-cr-60273-WPD Document 799 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2013 Page 2 of 2

Copies furnished to:
Carlos Raurell, AUSA
Michael Smith, Esquire
Dale Peters, #68015, 097
c/o USP Atwater Camp
PO Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301