[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13971

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00003-HLM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

MILES L. GAMMAGE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(April 13, 2015)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-13971 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 1 of 5 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Miles L. Gammage, a former attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s order directing the garnishee, Andrew B. Roper, P.C., to deposit funds 

owed to Gammage into the restitution fund to satisfy his restitution, and the denial 

of his motion for reconsideration. Gammage’s brief, which we construe liberally, 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), asserts three arguments. Each 

argument fails, as we discuss in turn. 

First, Gammage argues the garnishment was improper because the 

restitution obligation was allegedly fulfilled, at least in part, by payments made to 

the victims by an insurance company and by the State Bar of Georgia. The district 

court did not err by declining to reduce Gammage’s restitution based on these 

alleged payments by third parties. Gammage has not presented any proof of the 

payments to the victims. Even if he had, he would still owe the same restitution 

amount because the payors would step in as substitute victims. See 18 U.S.C. §

3664(f)(1)(B) (“In no case shall the fact that a victim has received or is entitled to 

receive compensation with respect to a loss from insurance or any other source be 

considered in determining the amount of restitution”); 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(1) (“If a 

victim has received compensation from insurance or any other source with respect 

to a loss, the court shall order that restitution be paid to the person who provided or 

Case: 14-13971 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 2 of 5 
3

is obligated to prove the compensation”). Therefore, the district court did not did 

not err by declining to reduce Gammage’s restitution amount. 

Second, Gammage argues the garnishment was improper because a third 

party has a prior security interest in the garnished funds. We liberally construe 

Gammage’s brief to be arguing he lacks a “substantial nonexempt interest” in the 

garnished funds See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(a) (explaining a court may order 

garnishment only against property in which the debtor has a “substantial 

nonexempt interest”). Gammage has not satisfied his burden of proof of showing 

he lacks a substantial nonexempt interest in the Roper funds. See id. § 3205(c)(5) 

(explaining “the judgment debtor may . . . object[] to the [garnishee’s] answer” but 

he “bear[s] the burden of proof of proving [the] grounds” of his objection”). The 

garnishee, Andrew Roper, stated Gammage had an interest in the funds, and 

Gammage presented no evidence of a prior lien other than his statements that he 

previously “pledged” the funds to someone else. Id. Gammage has not contended 

a judgment was obtained in the third party’s favor; a prior security interest was 

recorded; or a prior garnishment exists. Id. § 3205(c)(8) (“Judicial orders and 

garnishments for the support of a person shall have priority over a writ of 

garnishment issued under this section.”). Nor has Gammage established any other 

Case: 14-13971 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 3 of 5 
4

grounds for exempting the garnished funds.1 Therefore, the district court did not 

err by concluding Gammage had a substantial nonexempt interest in the funds. 

Third, Gammage argues the district court abused its discretion by denying 

his motion for reconsideration because it incorrectly determined his answer to the 

government’s motion for entry of a final disposition order was untimely. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reconsider the 

order of garnishment. Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010) 

(reviewing the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion). In 

his motion for reconsideration, Gammage identified no new evidence or manifest 

error. Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The only grounds 

for granting [a motion for reconsideration] are newly-discovered evidence or 

manifest errors of law or fact.”) (quotation and citation omitted). Even if the 

district court erred by not considering Gammage’s answer, that did not rise to 

manifest error because the FDCPA does not expressly grant Gammage a right to 

respond to a motion for entry of a final disposition order, see 28 U.S.C. § 

3205(c)(7), and Gammage has not identified any other statute or case law 

providing him a right to respond to the government’s motion. Furthermore, 

 1 In Gammage’s request for hearing on the garnished funds, Gammage claimed an 

exemption for “wages, salary and other income.” However, the district court concluded the 

exemption did not apply, and Gammage has not addressed the issue in his brief on appeal. He 

has therefore abandoned this issue. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se

litigant are deemed abandoned.”) (citation omitted). 

Case: 14-13971 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Gammage’s objections to the garnishment could have been raised in his objection 

to Roper’s answer to the writ of garnishment, so he could not raise them in a 

motion for reconsideration. See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5); Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. 

of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining a motion for 

reconsideration cannot be used “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present 

evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”). Therefore, 

the district court did not err by denying Gammage’s motion for reconsideration. 

AFFIRMED.

 

Case: 14-13971 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 5 of 5