United States of America v. Caramadre et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 10 MOTION for Final Garnishment Order . So Ordered by District Judge William E. Smith on 7/20/2020. (Jackson, Ryan)

Case 1:16-cv-00445-WES-PAS Document 12 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 79

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 16-445 WES
)
JOSEPH CARAMADRE,
)
)
Defendant,
)
)
and
)
)
AMERITAS LIFE INSURANCE
)
CORPORATION,
)
)
Garnishee.
)
__________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.
In

February

2014,

the

Court

ordered

Defendant

Joseph

Caramadre (“Mr. Caramadre”) to pay $46,330,077.61 in restitution
as part of his criminal sentence.
247, Cr. No. 11-186.

See Amended Judgment, ECF No.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3205(b)(1), the

government filed this action seeking a garnishment order against
$8,533.33 in disability income benefits owed to Mr. Caramadre
presently in the possession of Ameritas Life Insurance, Corp.
(the

“Ameritas

Property”).

Garnishment, ECF No. 1.

See

Application

for

Writ

of

Before the Court is the government’s

Motion for Final Garnishment Order (“Gov’t Mot.”), ECF No. 10.
Intervenor

Paula

Caramadre

(“Ms.

Caramadre”),

Mr.

Caramadre’s

Case 1:16-cv-00445-WES-PAS Document 12 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 80

ex-wife,
Paula

opposes

the

Caramadre’s

Government’s

Resp.

in

Opp’n

Motion.
to

See

Gov’t’s

Intervenor[]

Mot.

for

Garnishment Order (“Ms. Caramadre Opp’n”), ECF No. 11.
reasons

set

forth

below,

the

Court

GRANTS

the

Final

For the

Government’s

Motion for Final Garnishment Order.
At

a

hearing

on

September

28,

2017,

on

this

and

other

garnishment actions concerning Mr. Caramadre, the Court ruled
that the Ameritas Property does not fall within any statutory
exemptions,

and

outstanding

issue

property.

thus
is

is

subject

Ms.

to

Caramadre’s

The

garnishment. 1
competing

claim

only

to

the

See generally Ms. Caramadre Opp’n.

With respect to Ms. Caramadre’s claim, to the extent her
opposition can be read to argue that her claim to the Ameritas
Property has priority over the government’s claim because of a
2017 Rhode Island Family Court order awarding her $16,900.00 per
month in spousal support, it readily fails.
v.

Corso,

Criminal

Action

No.

3:05-CR-00105

See United States
(JCH),

2016

WL

3349213, *4 (D. Conn. June 14, 2016) (“None of the exemptions
listed

in

section

6334(a)

and

cross-referenced

by

section

3613(a)(1) are for alimony or other family support payments and,
At the September 2017 hearing, Mr. Caramadre argued that
the Ameritas Property should be exempt from garnishment because
it represents disability payments that he would use to maintain
his household.
The Court held that this property did not fall
within any of the exemptions set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3613(a)(1)-(3).
1

2

Case 1:16-cv-00445-WES-PAS Document 12 Filed 07/20/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 81

relatedly, there is no provision that exempts orders for child
support entered after the date of levy.” (citing 26 U.S.C. §
6334(a); 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1))).
Ms. Caramadre next submits that the Court did not properly
consider

Mr.

Caramadre’s

“obligations

to

dependents”,

required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664, in its restitution order.
Caramadre Opp’n 2-3.

as
Ms.

The Court rejected this argument when it

adopted Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Report and Recommendation in
Cont’l

Cas.

Co.

v.

Caramadre,

No.

CV

18-461

WES,

2020

WL

1466244, at *1 (D.R.I. Mar. 26, 2020), and does again here.
For starters, non-parties do not have standing to challenge
restitution orders.

Rather, only a defendant has a “judicially

cognizable interest” in his sentence, of which the restitution
order is part.

See United States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271, 277–

78 (3d Cir. 2012) (“We agree that a non-party lacks standing to
appeal

a

restitution

“judicially
sentence,

cognizable
and

is

order,

because

interest”’

thus

not

in

a
a

aggrieved

non-party

lacks

‘a

criminal

defendant’s

by

defendant’s

the

sentence.” (quotations and citations omitted)); see also United
States v. Grundhoefer, 916 F.2d 788, 791 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding
that

a

trustee

“[c]ollateral

representing

individual[]”

defrauded

without

3

creditors

standing

to

was

a

mount

a

Case 1:16-cv-00445-WES-PAS Document 12 Filed 07/20/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 82

challenge

to

defendants’

criminal

restitution

orders

that

provided an award to other creditors).
Moreover, even if Ms. Caramadre had standing to contest the
restitution

order,

this

appropriate vehicle.
CR-00117-H,

2011

WL

garnishment

action

would

not

be

the

See United States v. Blondeau, No. 5:096000499,

at

*4

(E.D.N.C.

Nov.

1,

2011),

report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:09-CR-117-1H, 2011 WL
6001281
making

(E.D.N.C.
a

Nov.

collateral

30,

2011)

attack

on

(“Defendant
the

is

restitution

essentially
order.

An

objection to garnishment proceeding is not the proper vehicle to
attack the Court’s Judgment and order of restitution.”); see
also United States v. Whitt, No. 11–50395, 2011 WL 4062459, at
*1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2011) (“An attack on a restitution
recalculation

or

obligation

by

means

of

an

objection

to

garnishment is an impermissible route to collaterally attack the
judgment.”); United States v. Minneman, 38 Fed. App’x 321, 323
(7th Cir. 2002) (concluding that a “challenge [in post-judgment
garnishment

proceeding]

to

the

validity

of

the

underlying

restitution order is precluded by res judicata”).
The Court entered its restitution order in Mr. Caramadre’s
criminal case in February 2014, after a three-day evidentiary
hearing before Judge Sullivan.
11-186.

See Am. J., ECF No. 247, Cr. No.

Mr. Caramadre waived his right to appeal, including

4

Case 1:16-cv-00445-WES-PAS Document 12 Filed 07/20/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 83

from the restitution order.

See United States v. Caramadre, 807

F.3d 359, 377-78 (1st Cir. 2015) (holding that Mr. Caramadre’s
attempt to challenge the restitution order was barred by the
waiver-of-appeal

provision

contained

in

his

plea

agreement).

Time to attack that order as ill-considered has long passed, and
even

if

time

had

not

expired,

standing to mount the challenge.

5

Ms.

Caramadre

would

have

no

Case 1:16-cv-00445-WES-PAS Document 12 Filed 07/20/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 84

For the reasons set forth above, United States’ Motion for
Final

Garnishment

Caramadre’s

Order,

ECF

Opposition.

No.

10,

is

Accordingly,

GRANTED,
the

over

Court

Ms.

directs

Garnishee Ameritas Life Insurance, Corp. to pay to the United
States

of

America

the

funds,

in

an

amount

not

less

than

$8,533.33, currently held by the Garnishee pursuant to the Writ
of Garnishment issued by the Court on August 10, 2016.

The

Court further orders Garnishee Ameritas Life Insurance, Corp. to
deliver these funds to the Clerk of Court, U.S. District Court
for

the

District

of

Rhode

Island,

One

Exchange

Terrace,

Providence, Rhode Island 02903, by check made payable to Clerk,
U.S.

District

payment

to

Court,
the

and

that

the

restitution

Clerk

order

1:11CR00186-01S.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
District Judge
Date: July 20, 2020

6

of

entered

Court
in

apply

the

Case

No.