United States of America v. Williams

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 4 REQUEST FOR HEARING ON REQUEST FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 23-mc-51023
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
GEORGE WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
HEARING ON REQUEST FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT
On October 25, 2022, Defendant George Williams (“Defendant”) pled guilty
to one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. See Plea Agreement,
United States v. Williams, 16-cr-20526, ECF No. 24. On March 14, 2023, this
Court sentenced Defendant to one-day time served and two years of supervised
release. See Judgment, id., ECF No. 20. The Court further ordered Defendant to
pay $133,739.00 in restitution and a $100.00 assessment. Id.
On June 2, 2023, the United States filed an application for writ of continuing
garnishment. (ECF No. 1.) The request was submitted to the Michigan
Department of Treasury for monies owed or owed in the future to Defendant. (Id.)
Defendant filed a request for a hearing on the garnishment (ECF No. 4), and the
Government filed a response (ECF No. 5.) Because Defendant raises no valid
1

objections to the garnishment, his request for a hearing and any objection to the
garnishment are denied.
Applicable Law & Analysis
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A3664, requires sentencing courts to order criminal defendants to pay restitution to
their victims. The MVRA permits the government to enforce a restitution order
“by all other available and reasonable means,” id. § 3664(m)(1)(A), including “in
accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil
judgment under Federal law or State law,” id. § 3613(a). 28 U.S.C. § 3205(a)
provides the Government with authority to enforce restitution orders through
garnishments. The United States may garnish all property except that which is
specifically exempt from a levy. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613; 26 U.S.C. § 6334; United
States v. Nash, 175 F.3d 440, 443 (6th Cir. 1999) (“The provisions of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3613(a) state that the United States may enforce a judgment imposing a fine,
restitution, or assessment against the property of the person fined, with the
exception of those exemptions found in 26 U.S.C. § 6334.”).
A judgment debtor can object to a garnishment proceeding pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 3202(d). Within twenty days of receiving the notice described in section
3202(b), the judgment debtor may request a hearing to quash the garnishment.
However, the garnishment hearing is limited to (1) valid claim exemptions, (2)
2

post-judgment statutory compliance for issuing the garnishment, and (3) challenges
to judgments entered by default. Id.
While the statutory language requires the court to “hold a hearing . . . as
soon as practicable,” courts have denied requests for hearings “where the debtor
did not object based on one of the issues specified in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d), where
the objection is plainly without merit, or where the objection was simply a matter
of statutory interpretation.” United States v. Miller, 588 F. Supp. 2d 789, 797
(W.D. Mich. 2008) (collecting cases and denying a hearing where the defendant
failed to identify any valid objections to the writ of garnishment). If the objecting
party does not raise a statutorily permissible issue in the request for a garnishment
hearing, the request should be denied. See United States v. Mahar, 42 F.3d 1389
(6th Cir. 1994) (finding that the debtor’s claim of financial hardship was not a
permissible subject for a § 3202(d) hearing); United States v. Lawrence, 538 F.
Supp. 3d 1188, 1194 (D.S.D. 2008) (“If Congress wanted to allow for the equities
present in each case to be delved into at a § 3202(d) hearing, then it most assuredly
would have said so and expanded the scope of the statute accordingly.”) Under
§ 3205, the objecting party bears the burden of proving the grounds for his or her
objection. 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5).
Defendant fails to articulate any statutory basis for relief from the
garnishment and restitution order. His request includes an exemption form on
3

which he checked three categories of exemptions he believes prevents the
garnishment: (1) “Wearing apparel and school books”; (2) “Fuel, provisions,
furniture, and personal effects”; and (3) “Books and tools of a trade, business, or
profession.” (ECF No. 4 at PageID. 20.) But none of these categories are the
subject of the garnishment directed at the Michigan Department of Treasury.
Defendant also asserts that the notice of garnishment fails to credit him for
restitution payments he has made. (Id. at PageID. 19.) However, he had not paid
the restitution in full when the writ of garnishment was issued. Moreover, this
objection is not a basis for granting a hearing. See supra.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Request for Hearing (ECF No. 4) is
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 25, 2024

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel
of record and/or pro se parties on this date, November 25, 2024, by electronic
and/or U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager

4