United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60586

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Dwayne G. Deer, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:08-CR-89-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dwayne G. Deer was ordered to pay restitution after pleading guilty 

in 2008 to conspiracy to commit bank fraud. In 2022, pursuant to the 

Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) and the Federal Debt 

Collection Procedures Act, the Government successfully applied to the 

_____________________

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion 

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set 

forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 19, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60586 Document: 00516791855 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2023
No. 22-60586

2

district court to enforce the restitution order by garnishing Deer’s earnings 

and a 401(k)-retirement account in his name. Deer now appeals the order of 

garnishment. This court generally examines questions of law de novo but 

otherwise reviews garnishment orders for an abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Clark, 990 F.3d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 2021).

Arguing that the restitution order is void or else defective on various 

statutory and constitutional grounds, Deer asks this court to vacate, modify, 

or otherwise act upon it.

1

 However, his appeal from the garnishment 

proceeding did not bring up the restitution order for review. See United States 

v. Clayton, 613 F.3d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Onyeri, 

996 F.3d 274, 281-83 (5th Cir. 2021). To the extent Deer seeks to appeal the 

restitution order, that portion of the appeal is DISMISSED. See Clayton, 

613 F.3d at 594.

Deer also disputed the restitution order’s validity during his 

garnishment proceeding in the district court. As that court recognized, a 

judgment debtor “may not use a garnishment proceeding to challenge the 

underlying judgment and restitution order in his case.” Onyeri, 996 F.3d at 

281. Although Deer maintains that jurisdictional defects in a prior 

proceeding are always open to attack, he is mistaken. See Travelers Indemn. 

Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137, 152-53 (2009); United States v. Parker, 927 F.3d 

374, 381 n.9 (5th Cir. 2019). In any event, the one argument that he presents 

as jurisdictional cannot be viewed as such. See Dolan v. United States, 

560 U.S. 605 (2010). Deer accordingly fails to show that the district court 

erred in finding his collateral attacks on the restitution order barred.

_____________________

1 Deer entered a plea agreement with the Government that includes a waiver of his 

right to appeal or otherwise challenge his conviction and sentence. To the extent the 

Government asks us to enforce the waiver, the issue is pretermitted. See United States v. 

Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2006).

Case: 22-60586 Document: 00516791855 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2023
No. 22-60586

3

Next, Deer argues that the enforcement of liens securing restitution 

debt is subject to a 10-year statute of limitations based on 26 U.S.C. 

§ 6502(a)(1) and related provisions of the Revenue Code. As Deer notes, the 

MVRA makes restitution enforceable in the same manner as federal tax liens. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c), (f). It does not follow that provisions of the Revenue 

Code apply in this context as a matter of course, however. See United States 

v. Tilford, 810 F.3d 370, 372 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Criminal restitution, even as a 

penalty for a failure to pay taxes, is not a tax.”); United States v. Clark, 

990 F.3d 404, 409 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2021). Furthermore, § 3613 makes 

restitution under the MVRA enforceable “[n]otwithstanding any other 

Federal law,” and we have construed that language as overriding any 

conflicting provisions. § 3613(a); see United States v. Elashi, 789 F.3d 547, 

551-53 (5th Cir. 2015).

Deer also contends that the Government failed to comply with the 

requirements of § 3612(d) and (e), but he again fails to show that the 

provisions invoked apply here. Nor has he shown that his 401(k) account is

exempt from garnishment. See United States v. DeCay, 620 F.3d 534, 540-41 

(5th Cir. 2010). Deer’s remaining arguments are unavailing because they fail 

to suggest any error on the part of the district court or because they are 

inadequately briefed. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th 

Cir. 2010). This court construes pro se filings liberally, but even pro se 

litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the order of garnishment is 

AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

Case: 22-60586 Document: 00516791855 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/19/2023