Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-mc-00038/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-mc-00038-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Irma Miguel
Defendant
United States
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 Final Order of Garnishment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

IRMA MIGUEL,

 Defendant and Judgment Debtor.

STANISLAUS COUNTY EMPLOYEES 

RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION,

(and its Successors and Assignees)

 Garnishee.

Case No.: 1:16-MC-00038-LJO-EPG

FINAL ORDER OF GARNISHMENT

Criminal Case No.: 1:96CR05110-REC

(Doc. 10)

Upon a review of the United States’ Application for a Writ of Garnishment, as well as its request 

for Findings and Recommendations for a Final Order of Garnishment (Doc. 10),1the Court finds as 

follows:

1. On August 26, 1996, the Court convicted and sentenced Defendant Irma Miguel in criminal 

case number 1:96-cr-5110-REC. The Judgment ordered that Defendant pay a $50.00 special assessment 

 

1

A Final Order of Garnishment rather than Findings and Recommendations is issued in this case since the Judgment 

Debtor did not request a hearing.

Case 1:16-mc-00038-LJO-EPG Document 12 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 3
2 Final Order of Garnishment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

and $224,655.62 in restitution. See, U.S.A. v. Miguel, 1:96CR05110-REC (Docs. 5 & 6).

2. To collect the restitution order, the United States filed an Application for Writ of

Garnishment on June 24, 2016 in the instant case. (Doc. 3).

3. As of June 22, 2016, Irma Miguel owed $225,311.61 in restitution. (Doc. 3, pg. 2, lines 6-11).

4. The Clerk issued a Writ of Garnishment, as well as the Clerk’s Notice and Instructions to

Judgment Debtor on June 24, 2016. (Doc. 4 & 5).

5. On June 24, 2016, the United States served the Garnishee and Judgment Debtor with a

copy of the Writ of Garnishment and its attachments. The Judgment Debtor was notified of her right to 

a hearing and object to the Answer and/or to claim exemptions. (Doc. 6). Specifically, the Notice 

advised the Judgement Debtor that she had twenty days (20) days from the date the garnishee served its 

Answer to file a request for hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5), and/or to assert a claim of 

exemption. 

6. Garnishee, Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Association, served its

Acknowledgment of Service and Answer of Garnishee (the “Answer”) to the writ on June 29, 2016. In

its Answer, the garnishee identifies that the Judgment Debtor has an account that is in the custody,

possession and/or control of Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Association. The Answer states

that the Defined Benefit Plan has an approximate value of $73,383.54 and 100% of the account is 

comprised of Employee Contributions. (Doc. 7).

7. No request for hearing was filed, and no claims of exemptions were raised by the Judgment 

Debtor, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §3014(b)(2).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The United States’ request for a Final Order of Garnishment is GRANTED.

2. GARNISHEE, shall DELIVER, within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the Order, the 

full value, from Irma Miguel’s Defined Benefit Plan retirement account. Payment must be made in the 

form a cashier’s check, money order or company draft, and made payable to the “Clerk of the Court,” 

and shall be mailed to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, 501 I Street, Room 

4-200, Sacramento, California 95814. Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Association shall also 

state the criminal docket number (Case No. 1:96CR05110-REC) on the payment instrument. 

Case 1:16-mc-00038-LJO-EPG Document 12 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 3
3 Final Order of Garnishment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

3. That upon payment and processing of the garnished funds being applied towards 

restitution, the writ of garnishment shall TERMINATE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 3205(c)(10)(B).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-mc-00038-LJO-EPG Document 12 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 3