Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11440/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11440-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Garry Souffrant
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11440

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20407-PCH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GARRY SOUFFRANT, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 27, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-11440 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 1 of 5
2

In United States v. Souffrant, 517 F. App’x 803 (11th Cir. 2013), we 

affirmed appellant Garry Souffrant’s convictions on 46 counts of an indictment 

charging a “multi-million dollar mortgage fraud conspiracy” and related 

substantive offenses that occurred in South Florida in 2009. We also affirmed 

Souffront’s sentences, which included an order, entered pursuant to the Mandatory 

Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1227, 

codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2006), requiring him to pay in excess of $4.8 

million in restitution to the victims of his offenses. 

On October 19, 2011, the District Court, on the Government’s application 

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3205(a), issued a writ of garnishment to the City of 

Boca Raton Police and Firefighters’ Retirement System (the “Retirement System”)

in an effort to satisfy, at least in part, the restitution ordered. The Retirement 

System, in its response to the writ, stated that Souffrant’s employee pension fund

account had accumulated $46,962,

1 but, according to Fla. Stat. 175.241, it was not 

subject to garnishment.2

 Souffrant, responding, claimed that the sums in the 

 

1

 $41,788 in Souffrant’s contributions, the balance in interest earned. 

2

 Fla. Stat. 175.241, Exemption from tax and execution, states: 

For any municipality, special fire control district, chapter plan, local law 

municipality, local law special fire control district, or local law plan under this 

chapter, the pensions, annuities, or other benefits accrued or accruing to any 

person under any chapter plan or local law plan under the provisions of this 

chapter and the accumulated contributions and the cash securities in the funds 

created under this chapter are hereby exempted from any state, county, or 

USCA11 Case: 14-11440 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 2 of 5
3

pension fund account belonged to the Retirement System. The District Court 

found no merit in either response. In an order issued on March 24, 2014, Doc. 348, 

the court adopted a Magistrate Judge’s order, Doc. 333, directing the Retirement 

System to pay $46,962 into the District Court’s registry. Souffrant appeals the 

order.

Souffrant argues that the pension fund did not belong to him and thus is not 

subject to garnishment. The fund is, instead, made up of potential future income, 

which the District Court expressly addressed in its restitution order. He also 

argues that seizing the funds may have harmed the rights of his victims by 

diminishing a potential long-term flow of income.

3

Under the MVRA, restitution is mandatory for certain crimes, including 

offenses committed by fraud, such as those of which Souffrant had been convicted. 

18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii). The government may enforce a restitution 

order through the procedures available for the enforcement of a civil judgment. 

See id. § 3613(a); id. § 3613 (f) (“[A]ll provisions of this section are available to 

 

municipal tax and shall not be subject to execution or attachment or to any legal 

process whatsoever, and shall be unassignable.

3

 For this reason, Souffrant argues that the court erred in not affording the victims an 

evidentiary hearing. Souffrant lacked standing to seek an evidentiary hearing on behalf of the 

victims; hence, his argument is meritless.

USCA11 Case: 14-11440 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 3 of 5
4

the United States for the enforcement of an order of restitution.”). Among those 

available is a writ of garnishment. 28 U.S.C. § 3205. 

A restitution order issued following a conviction for an offense committed 

by fraud is a lien in favor of the government on all property and rights to property 

of the defendant---as if the defendant’s liability were a tax liability assessed under 

the Internal Revenue Code, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613(c), 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii)---except 

certain property that is exempt from levy for taxes pursuant to § 6334(a)(1)-(8), 

(10), and (12) of the Internal Revenue Code. See id. § 3613(a)(1), (f). The Federal 

Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789, 

4933 (Nov. 29, 1990), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq., preempts state 

exemptions, 28 U.S.C. § 3003(d), such as the one provided . Therefore, only 

property rights exempted from levy for taxes are exempt from garnishment to 

satisfy a restitution order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1), (2). 

Under the Internal Revenue Code, “all property and rights to property” other 

than certain exempt property4 may be levied to collect a tax liability. 26 U.S.C.

§ 6331(a). With the exception of exempt property, the broad language indicates 

Congress’s intent to “reach every interest in property that a taxpayer might have.” 

 4

 Pension and annuity benefits exempt under the Internal Revenue Code include pension 

or annuity payments under the Railroad Retirement Act, benefits under the Railroad 

Unemployment Insurance Act, and certain pension payments and annuities for members of the 

Armed Forces. 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(6). 

USCA11 Case: 14-11440 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 4 of 5
5

United States v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 719-20, 105 S.Ct. 2919, 

2924, 86 L.Ed.2d 565 (1989).

We find no error in the District Court’s ordering the garnishment of 

Souffrant’s pension plan funds. Under the MVRA, the Government could enforce 

the restitution order against the same property interests it could reach if Souffrant 

owed a tax deficiency. Because his pension plan is not one exempt from levy for a 

tax deficiency, a writ of garnishment could reach his contingent interest in the plan

and cash it out plan because Souffrant was entitled to do so. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-11440 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 5 of 5