N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. W ILLIAM S. POFF,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30141

D.C . No. 2:09-c r-00160-JLR -3
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2018 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : GOULD, PAEZ, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. W illia m S. Poff (Poff) a

ppe a ls from

an orde r dire c ting theB ure a u of Prisons to turn ove r funds in his inm a te trust a c c ount to the

C le rk of the Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington for pa ym e nt of his c ourtorde re d re stitution. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED MAR 07 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.1. The M andatory Vic tim s R e stitution Ac t (M V R A) re quire s a

prisone r who

“ re c e ive s substantial re

s ourc e s from any

sourc e , inc luding inheritanc e

, se t tle me nt, or othe r judgme n t , . . . to a pply the va lue of suc h re s ourc e s to a ny re stitution or fine still owe d.” 18 U.S.C . § 3664(n) (e m pha sis a dde d). Poff argue s tha t the funds in his inma te trust a c c ount do not qua lify a s “ substa

ntia l re sourc e s from

any sourc e , inc luding inherita nc e , se ttle m e nt or othe r judge m e nt.” 18 U.S.C
. § 3664(n). Inste a d, Poff urge s tha t “ substa ntia l re sourc e s” re fe rs only to windfa lls; or, what he c ha

ra c te riz e s a s “ e c onom i c ga ins tha t a re une xpe c te d a

n d the re fore
we re not fore se e n

at the tim e of se nte n c i ng.” He invoke s e j usde m ge ne ris i n support of this re a d ing of the sta tute . B ut e

jusde m ge ne ris is m e re ly an “ a id to the
a sc e rta i nm e nt of the true m e an ing of the sta tute ,” and is “ ne i the r fina l nor
e xc lusive .” He lv e ring v . Stoc k holms Ensk

i lda Bank , 293 U.S. 84, 89 (1934). “ If, upon a c onside ra tion of thec onte xt a nd the obje c ts sought to be atta ine d a

nd of the
a c t a s a whole , it a de quate ly a ppe ars tha

t the ge ne ra l words we re not use d in the
re stric te d se nse sugge ste d by

the rule , we m

ust givee ffe c t to the c onc lusion
a fforde d by

the wide r vie w in orde r that the will of theLe gisla t ure sha ll not fa il.” Id. C ongre ss sought, through the M VR A, to re store to vic tim s of c rim e “ the
re stitution tha

t the y are due
. ” S. R e p. No. 104-179, a t 12 (1995); se e In rePartida , 862 F.3d 909, 911 (9th C ir. 2017). B e c a use “ [t] he prim ary

and ove rarc hing goa l of
2the M VR

A is to m ake vic tim s of c rim e whole ,” Unite d State s v . Gordon , 393 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th C ir. 2004), thepla in la ngua ge of the M VR

A doe s not support the
c onc lusion tha

t the funds in Poff’ s inm a te trust a c c ount a re be y ond the re a c h of § 3664(n). Poff ne xt sugge sts tha

t the sum s de posite d into his inm a te trust a c c ount we re not “ substa

ntia l.” “ [W ] e follow thec om m on pra c tic e of c onsulting dic tiona ry de finitions to c la

rify the [] ordina

ry m e aning [of sta

tutory la ngua ge ] . . . .” Unite d State s v . TRW Rifle 7.62X51mm C

alibe r , 447 F.3d 686, 689 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). To de sc ribe fina nc ia l re sourc e s a s

“ substa n tia l” is to sugge s t tha

t the y are “ [c ] onside ra

ble in a m ount or va lue .” Substantial , B la c k ’ s La

w Dic tiona

ry 1656 (10th e d. 2014). “ B ut inte rpre ting a

sta tute is a holistic e nde a

v or,” and we m

u st “ l ook not only to the la ngua ge i tse lf, [but a lso to] the spe c ific c onte x t in whic h tha t la n gua ge is use d, a nd the broa de r c onte xt of the sta t ute a s a whole .” J

ohnson v . Aljian , 490 F.3d 778, 780 (9th C ir. 2007) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). The sta tutory
sc he m e re pose s in se nte nc i ng judge s the disc re tion to de vise a pa ym e nt sc he dule that a c c ounts for thede fe nda

nt’ s “ fina n c i a l re sourc e s a

n d othe r a sse t s,” “ proje c te d
e arnings a

nd othe r inc om e ,” and “ fina nc i a l obliga

tions.” 18 U.S.C . § 3664(f)(2). This sugge sts tha

t “ re sourc e s” are “ [c ] onside ra ble in a m ount or va lue ” if the y
3positive l y

e xc e e d the sum s ne e de d by

a c rim ina l de fe nda

nt to sa tisfy fina nc ia l obliga tions e sta blishe d at the tim e of se nte nc ing. B e c a use the se nte nc ing c ourt did not find tha

t Poff ha d c om

pe ting obliga

tions, thedistric t c ourt did not err in finding the funds in Poff’ s inm a t e trust a c c ount to be“ substa ntia l” and the re fore subje c t to
se iz ure . 2. Poff a lso a sse rts tha

t his ve te ra

n disa bility be ne fits we re e x e m

pt from le vy for ta xe s unde r the Inte rna l R e ve nue C o de and, he nc e , e xe m pt from e nforc e m e nt unde r the M VR

A
. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3613(a )(1); IR C § 6334(a )(10). As re l e va nt he re , the tax c ode ’ s e x e m ption a pplie s to “ [a ] ny

am ount pa

y a ble to a n individual a s
a se rvic e -c onne c te d . . . disa bility be ne fit . . . .”IR C § 6334(a )(10). B e c a u se the ta x c ode distinguishe s be twe e n am o unts tha t a re “ pa y a ble to,” am ounts tha

t a re

“ re c e ive d by ,” and a

m ounts tha

t a re “ pa y a ble to or re c e i ve d by ” an

individual, se e IR C § 6334, thee xpre ssion of oneof the se a lte rna tive s ne c e ssa rily e xc lude s
anothe r. Se e Marx

v . Ge n. Re v e nueC

orp. , 568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013). B y e xe m pting from

le vy se rvic e -c o nne c te d disa

bility be ne fits “p ay a

ble to” an individual, C ongre ss de c line d to e xte n d the e xe m ption to those

sa m e be ne fits onc e the y have be e n pa id. As thedistric t c ourt c o rre c tly obse rve d, the ve te ran disa bility be ne fits in Poff’ s inm a te trust a c c ount we re pa id to him , not “ pa y a ble to” him
.

4Thus, the distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t the se funds we re not e xe m p t from e nforc e m e nt unde r the M V R A. 3. Poff a lso c onte nds tha

t the gove rnm e nt’ s se iz ure of his ve te ran disa bility be ne fits viola

te d the C onsum e r C re dit Prote c tion Ac t (C C PA)’ s prohibitions on ga rnishm e nt. Se e 18 U.S.C
. § 3613, 15 U.S.C . § 1673. Poff c onc e de s tha t “ [t] he C C PA wa s not e xpre ssly

c ite d to the distric t c ourt.” While “ [a ] doc um e nt file d pro
se is to belibe ra l ly

c o nstrue d” and “ m

ust be he l d to le ss stringe nt sta n da rds tha n form a l ple a dings dra fte d by la wy e rs,” Eric k

son v . Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (inte rna l c ita

tions a nd quota tion m a rks om itte d), Poff’ s oppositions to the gove rnm e nt’ s turnove r m otion did not a rtic ulate a “ ge ne ra l argum e nt” a

bout sta tutory lim its on ga

rnishm e nt a

nd fa ile d to pla c e the gove rnm e nt on notic e of his
c la im
. Se e Alv arado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th C ir. 2014). Poff ha s the re fore wa ive d a

ny rights he m ight ha

v e ha d unde r the C C PA. S e e Hillis v
. He ine man , 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th C ir. 2010). In any c a se , the stric ture s of the C C PA a pply only to “ e arnings.” 15 U.S.C
. § 1673. Unde r Use ry

v . First N

ational Bank

of Arizona , 586 F. 2d 107, 108 (9th C ir. 1978), c om

pe nsation pa id by

an e m ploy e r doe s not re ta in its c ha ra c te r a s

“ e a rnings” a fte r it ha s be e n de posite d into a n e m ploy e e ’ s ba

nk a c c ount. Eve n
a ssum ing tha

t Poff’ s ve te ran disa

bility be ne fits we re wa ge s, the funds a lre a dy
5de posite d into in Poff’ s inm a te trust a c c o unt we re not “ e arnings” and we re

the re fore not shie lde d by

the C C PA. 4. Poff atta c ks the e nc um branc e of funds in his inm a te trust a c c ount a s viola tive of due proc e ss be c a

use the y we re initia lly e nc um

be re d without prior notic e and a

n opportunity

to be he a rd. It is undispute d tha

t a prisone r ha s a prope rty inte re st in his inm

ate trust a c c ount. Se e Shinault v . Hawk s , 782 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th C ir. 2015). “ [T] he que stion re m a ins wha t proc e ss is due .” Morrisse y v . Bre w e r , 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972). “ [U] nde r fe de ra l la w , what proc e s s is due is de te rm ine d by c onte xt, to be ana ly z e d in a c c orda nc e with the thre e -part ba la

n c ing te st de sc ribe d in Mathe w s v . Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976).” Roy bal v . Toppe nish Sc h. Dist. , 871 F.3d 927, 933 (9th C ir. 2017).

“ First, c ourts m

ust look a t the nature of the inte re s t tha t will bea ffe c t e d by the o ffic ia l a c tion, a

nd in pa rtic ula r, to thede gre e of pote ntia l de priva tion tha t m ay be c re a te d .” N

ozzi v . Hous. Auth. of L.A. , 806 F.3d 1178, 1192–93 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). B e c a

use the funds in Poff’ s inm a te trust
a c c ount c ould not bea c c e sse d fre e ly and we re not re lie d on for subsistenc e , his inte re s t in the m

wa s dim inishe d. Se e Mathe w s , 424 U.S. a

t 340–41. “ Se c ond,
c ourts m u st c onside r the fa irne s s a nd re lia bility of the e xisting proc e d

ure s a nd the proba b le va lue , if a

ny , of a dditiona l proc e dura l sa fe gua rds.” N ozzi , 806 F.3d a

t
61193 (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d). As the am o unt of re s titution to be pa id ha d be e n de te rm ine d through prior judic i a l proc e e dings, theva lue of a d ditiona l proc e d ura l sa fe gua

rds wa s ne gligible . “ Fina lly , c ourts m ust a sse ss the public inte re s t, whic h inc lude s the a dm inistra tive burde n a

nd othe r soc ie ta l c osts tha t would be a ssoc iat e d with a dditiona l or substitute proc e dure s.” Id. (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). He re , the gove rnm e nt ha d a strong inte re st in pre se rving funds a v a ila ble for re stitution. Poff que stions the ne c e ssity of the se iz ure , ave rring that the funds in theinm a te trust a c c ount we re he ld by the B ure a

u of Prisons. B ut the g ove rnm e nt c o uld not le gitim a te ly bloc k a n othe rwise prope r use of funds in the a c c ount, unle ss it ha d t he a uthority to e n c um be r the m . Doing so pre v e n te d de ple tion of thea c c o unt. B a la nc ing the thre e Mathe w

s fa c tors, we c onc l ude tha t a pre -de priva

tion he aring is not c onstitutiona lly m andate d in a

c a se like this, whe re the funds to be
e nc um be re d we re not ne e d e d for subsiste nc e , whe re the e ntire ty of those funds wa s subje c t to a

judgm e n t lie n pursua

nt to theM VR

A, whe re the am ount of the judgm e nt lie n ha d be e n pre viously de te rm ine d

through judic ia l proc e ss, a nd whe re the funds we re only

froz e n— not distribute d—

pe nding re solution of a

m otion be fore a distric t c ourt. For a ll of the se re a sons, thedistric t c ourt did not err in

7holding the

gove rnm e n t’ s e nc um

branc e of Poff’ s inm a te trust a c c o unt to be
c onstitutiona

l. AFFIRM E D.

8