United States of America v. Appelbaum

Filing 71

ORDER ordering that the funds as set out in the 70 Consent Judgment entered on April 14, 2016, be returned by no later than May 16, 2016. If the government cannot return the funds by this date, the Court shall require counsel to file a detailed memorandum explaining why the judgment has not been satisfied. See image of Order for complete instructions. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 4/14/2016. (cbb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
Civil Action No. 5:12-CV-186 (Lead); 3:14-CV-504 (Consolidated)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC APPELBAUM,
Defendant.
_______________________________________

ORDER

CLAUDIA APPELBAUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

BEFORE THE COURT is its own order regarding the return of the amounts levied
from Claudia Applebaum’s accounts. The Consent Order entered by this Court stated that the
United States shall return the $207,352.80 levied from the E Trade Account along with statutory
interest accruing from the date of levy, March 11, 2014, until paid; and that the United States
shall return the $1,000,000.00 levied from the Wells Fargo account along with statutory interest
accruing from the date of levy, March 13, 2014, until paid. Claudia Appelbaum requests that
these amounts be returned by April 30, 2016 or, in the alternative, a reasonable date certain. The
government maintains that it cannot commit to a date certain for the return of the funds.

The Court hereby ORDERS that these funds be returned by no later than May 16, 2016.
If the government cannot return the funds by this date, the Court shall require counsel to file a
detailed memorandum explaining why the judgment has not been satisfied. The memorandum
shall discuss the process required to satisfy a judgment. It shall provide a timeline of this
judgment’s progress. The memorandum shall be supported by declarations from the particular
government personnel responsible for processing the judgment. After reviewing the
memorandum, the Court will determine whether or not good cause exists for an extension. The
Court will also consider requiring the particular personnel responsible for processing the
payment to provide a status update in person.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 14, 2016