Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02428/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02428-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 08-2428/2615

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

Larry J. Young, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant, *

*

Huey Long Company, Inc., *

*

Garnishee. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2009

Filed: January 29, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Larry J. Young challenges the district court’s1

denial of his motion for contempt and its order of garnishment. 

Appellate Case: 08-2428 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2010 Entry ID: 3629485
-2-

In September 1990, Young was ordered to pay restitution to the United States

as a condition of supervised release, after he was found guilty of filing false tax

claims. Young was discharged from supervised release in November 1993 and the

criminal case terminated. In January 2008, the government applied for a writ of

continuing garnishment, naming Young’s employer as garnishee. Young moved to

quash the proceeding and later to dismiss, asserting the government was “mixing civil

and criminal jurisdictions.” The district court denied the motions, ruling the

government could initiate collection proceedings to collect a fine or restitution as part

of a criminal sentence. 

Young then moved to hold the government in contempt, claiming it had filed

a false lien notice in the county recorder’s office, and had violated a court order by

initiating the garnishment proceeding despite his discharge from supervised release.

The court denied the motion because Young’s obligation to pay restitution did not

terminate when his supervised release ended. See United States v. Rostoff, 164 F.3d

63, 66 (1st Cir. 1999) (failure to pay at the time due renders payment overdue; it does

not abate the obligation; restitution order extinguished by satisfaction, not by passage

of time). Young appeals the district court’s denial of his contempt motion and seeks

to proceed in forma pauperis in appeal No. 08-2428. We dismiss this appeal as

premature because Young filed his notice of appeal before final judgment was entered,

and the merits of the appeal are before this court in appeal No. 08-2615.

This court concludes the district court did not err in ordering garnishment or

denying in forma pauperis status. See In re: Southwestern Glass Co., Inc., 332 F.3d

513, 516 (8th Cir. 2003) (conclusions of law are reviewed de novo). The judgment

is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2428 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2010 Entry ID: 3629485