[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 14-11065; 15-12712

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:91-cr-00317-UU-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

RAMON LOPEZ,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 23, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-11065 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Defendant-Appellant Ramon Lopez, a federal inmate currently serving a life 

sentence, appeals from an April 24, 2015 order of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Florida denying his motion to reconsider its April 7, 

2015 order granting Plaintiff-Appellee United States of America’s (“the

Government”) motion for a disbursement of funds from Lopez’s inmate trust 

account with the United States Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).

1 On appeal, Lopez 

claims that the district court erred as a matter of law in entering an earlier January 

27, 2010 order because the court failed to hold a requested evidentiary hearing as 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). However, the January 27, 2010 order is not 

properly on appeal, and in any case, Lopez failed to raise this argument in his 

motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the argument is abandoned, and after careful 

review of the briefs and relevant parts of the record, we affirm.

The Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990 (“FDCPA”) “provides 

the exclusive civil procedures for the United States . . . to recover a judgment on a 

 1 We do not consider the merits of the district court’s January 27, 2010 order granting the 

Government’s motion for a disbursement of funds from Lopez’s inmate trust account for lack of 

jurisdiction. DE 420. Under 28 U.S.C. 2107(b)(1), in cases where one of the parties is the United 

States, we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a district court order unless a notice of appeal is 

filed within sixty days after the entry of the order being appealed. Lopez failed to meet this 

requirement with regard to the district court’s January 27, 2010 order because Lopez never filed 

a notice of appeal of that order. The notice of appeal filed in the instant case gave notice of 

appeal only of the district court’s April 24, 2015 order denying Lopez’s motion for 

reconsideration. DE 452. For these reasons, we do not review Lopez’s claims as they relate to 

the January 27, 2010 order granting the Government’s motion for a disbursement of funds from 

Lopez’s inmate trust account. Rather, we analyze only Lopez’s arguments as they relate to the 

district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

Case: 14-11065 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 2 of 7 
3

debt.” 28 U.S.C. § 3001(a)(1). Pursuant to the FDCPA, “[a] court may issue a writ 

of garnishment against property . . . in which the debtor has a substantial 

nonexempt interest and which is in the possession, custody, or control of a person 

other than the debtor, in order to satisfy the judgment against the debtor.” § 

3205(a). Among the procedural requirements provided in the Act, the United States 

must serve the writ on both the garnishee and the debtor. § 3205(c)(3). The 

garnishee must file a written answer to the writ under oath. § 3205(c)(4). Once the 

garnishee files its sworn written answer to the writ, “the judgment debtor or the 

United States may file a written objection to the answer and request a hearing.” § 

3205(c)(5). “The court shall hold a hearing within 10 days after the date the request 

is received by the court, or as soon thereafter as is practicable, and give notice of 

the hearing date to all the parties.” Id.

In the instant case, Lopez was convicted in the Southern District of Florida 

and sentenced to life imprisonment on October 29, 1993. The judgment also 

included a fine in the amount of $25,000 plus statutory interest due immediately. 

DE 265.

More than sixteen years later, the Government applied for a Writ of 

Garnishment against Lopez on November 10, 2009. DE 414. The application stated 

that, as of November 6, 2009, Lopez had paid only $925.00 of the $25,000 fine and 

that the balance of the judgment remained due. DE 414:1. The application further 

Case: 14-11065 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 3 of 7 
4

named the BOP as garnishee and stated the United States’ belief that the BOP 

Inmate Trust Account for Lopez had in its “possession, custody or control, 

property or assets in which defendant has a substantial nonexempt interest.” DE 

414:2. The writ was issued on the same day. DE 415.

The BOP filed an answer to the writ of garnishment on December 4, 2009. 

DE 416. The answer stated that the present value of Lopez’s Trust Fund Account 

was $54,088.11 and that there was a hold of $45,000.00 on the account, which had 

been placed at the direction of agency counsel and the BOP’s Special Investigative 

Service. DE 416:1.

Lopez, appearing pro se, filed a “Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment 

and Remove Lien” on January 7, 2010. In the Motion, Lopez stated that he “[did] 

not dispute the existence of the fine impose by the Court on October 29, 1993” but 

“expressly denie[d]” that the Government was entitled to garnish his prison 

account to satisfy the judgment. DE 417:2. Specifically, Lopez argued that the 

application for a writ of garnishment suffered from numerous procedural 

deficiencies, and, among other things, that the account contained “mostly” funds 

derived from insurance proceeds paid to cover damages caused to his house by 

Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma which were “probably exempt from garnishment 

under federal and State of Florida law.” See DE 417:2-4. For these reasons, Lopez 

requested the district court to issue an order dissolving the writ of garnishment and 

Case: 14-11065 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 4 of 7 
5

removing the lien placed on his prison account or, “in the alternative, scheduling 

an evidentiary hearing on the matter.” DE 417:4.

The Government filed a response requesting the district court deny Lopez’s 

motion on January 20, 2010. DE. 419. The Government’s response made no 

reference to Lopez’s alternative request for a hearing. On January 27, 2010, 

without the benefit of a hearing, the district court denied Lopez’s motion. DE 420.

The district court’s order did not address Lopez’s request for an evidentiary 

hearing.

Subsequently, as relevant here, Lopez filed a motion on February 2, 2010 

captioned “Motion to Vacate or Stay the Court’s January 27, 2010 Order,” DE 422, 

and another motion on March 3, 2010 captioned “Motion for Reconsideration 

and/or Clarification of the January 27, 2010 Order.” DE 426. Neither of these 

motions raised the issue of an evidentiary hearing. On April 30, 2010, Lopez filed 

another motion captioned “Defendant’s Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive 

Relief and Request for Expedite Evidentiary Hearing,” but that motion requested 

only a hearing to determine whether the interim freezing of the funds in his prison 

account was lawful. It did not, as in the January 7, 2010 motion, request a hearing 

on the merits of the FDCPA garnishment order. DE 433. The district court denied 

that motion on May 4, 2010, DE 434, and Lopez filed an interlocutory appeal of 

the denial in this Court on June 17, 2010. DE 437. Lopez’s appeal was dismissed 

Case: 14-11065 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 5 of 7 
6

by this Court on August 23, 2014 following Lopez’s motion for voluntary 

dismissal. DE 444.

Following the dismissal of Lopez’s appeal, the Government filed a motion 

requesting an order on the distribution of the funds in Lopez’s inmate trust 

account. DE 445. The district court granted that motion on April 7, 2015. DE 449. 

Lopez then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the district court’s disbursal 

order on April 21, 2015. DE 450. The Motion for Reconsideration made no request 

for an evidentiary hearing. On April 24, 2015, the district court denied Lopez’s 

Motion for Reconsideration. DE 451. Lopez then filed the Notice of Appeal in the 

instant case, in which he gave notice of his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals “from the final judgment order entered in this case on April 24, 2015.” DE 

452.

On appeal, Lopez argues that the district court abused its discretion in 

issuing the January 27, 2010 garnishment order because it applied the wrong law. 

Specifically, Lopez argues that the district court’s January 27, 2010 order violated

28 U.S.C. 3205(c)(5) by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing as requested in 

Lopez’s January 7, 2010 Motion to Writ of Garnishment and Remove Lien.

We have no opportunity to decide whether the district court erred in its 

January 27, 2010 garnishment order because that order is not properly on appeal. 

The only order appealed by Lopez is the district court’s April 24, 2015 order 

Case: 14-11065 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 6 of 7 
7

denying his Motion for Reconsideration of the district court’s April 7, 2015 order 

granting the Government’s Motion for an Order to Disburse the Funds that are 

Subject to the Writ of Garnishment. Moreover, Lopez did not raise the issue of an 

evidentiary hearing in the Motion for Reconsideration that was denied by the order 

currently on appeal. Therefore, the issue is abandoned.

Because Lopez raises no arguments challenging the district court’s April 24, 

2015 order—the only order on appeal here—we affirm the judgment of the district 

court.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-11065 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 7 of 7