United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-1242

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Hassan Osman

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

____________ 

Submitted: June 13, 2022

Filed: August 19, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Hassan Tifow Osman was convicted of several tax fraud offenses and failure 

to appear in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 3146(a)(1), and 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). 

In addition to imprisonment, the district court1 ordered $394,120.14 in restitution. 

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District 

of Minnesota.
-2- 

See United States v. Osman, 929 F.3d 962, 964 (8th Cir. 2019). After the 

government discovered substantial funds in Osman’s inmate trust account, the 

Bureau of Prisons encumbered it. He sued to free the account. The government 

moved for a turnover order. The district court granted the motion. Osman appeals. 

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

In the original judgment, the district court ordered that Osman make: “Lump 

sum payments of $394,120.14 due immediately.” After assessing his ability to pay, 

the district court also ordered a “Schedule of Payments,” of “equal quarterly 

installments of $25 if working non-Unicor or a minimum of 50 percent of monthly 

earnings if working Unicor,” beginning after the date of the judgment. Osman 

complied with the Schedule. 

Four years later, with the restitution balance at $394,095.14, the government

discovered substantial resources in Osman’s trust account, totaling $14,650.99. He 

had not alerted the government as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) and the original 

judgment. After the BOP encumbered the account, Osman sued under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(g). The government moved for a turnover order (preserving

$150 for essential purchases). 

Osman objected, arguing the encumbered funds were protected because 

friends and family deposited them so he could get legal counsel for deportation 

proceedings. The court granted the turnover, finding he received substantial 

resources from “any source” and must “apply the value of such resources to any

restitution or fine still owed.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n). See also 18 U.S.C. § 

3613(a); 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). See generally United States v. Kidd, 23 F.4th 781, 

787 (8th Cir. 2022) (agreeing with the Fifth Circuit’s approach to “substantial 

resources” in United States v. Hughes, 914 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 2019) and holding that 

“windfalls or sudden financial injections” are the type of “substantial resources” that 

fit within the ambit of § 3664(n)). 
-3- 

On appeal, Osman asserts for the first time that the funds deposited to his 

account by family and friends were loans to obtain legal counsel. And he believes 

the district court erred by not sua sponte holding an evidentiary hearing to determine 

whether anyone retained a third-party interest in the funds. Osman acknowledges 

he did not request an evidentiary hearing in the district court. This court reviews for 

plain error. See United States. v. White Bull, 646 F.3d 1082, 1095 (8th Cir. 2011)

(finding if a defendant did not seek an evidentiary hearing at trial, review is confined 

to plain error). Under plain error review, this court reverses only if there is (1) error, 

(2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affects 

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Johnson v. 

United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997). See also United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 

543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

Osman relies on United States v. Mitchell, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173166 (D. 

Minn. No. 14-cr-222 (PSJ) October 19, 2017) to argue that a third party had an 

interest in the money, and he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the matter. 

Mitchell relies on United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2011), holding a

defendant “may not be ordered” to apply funds “to his restitution debt simply 

because the funds are ‘available’ to him.” Yielding, 657 F.3d at 728-29. Rather, the 

defendant “must be the owner; it must be his money.” Yet, Osman never raised this 

argument in the district court. In fact, he explicitly contradicted it. In the district 

court Osman claimed that “the funds belong to Osman for the simple fact that they 

are deposited into his inmate trust fund account.” Osman did not submit any 

affidavits or evidence that his family retained a property interest in the funds they 

gave, nor did he ask for an evidentiary hearing. The district court accordingly ruled: 

“[T]his case presents no questions about ownership of the funds.” On appeal, Osman 

acknowledges: “In the district court, Osman did not claim that his family loaned him 

the money they provided. . . . Osman did not claim that those who provided the 

money had a property interest in it.” 

Absent a factual dispute, a district court has discretion in deciding whether to 

hold an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Howard, 973 F.3d 892, 895 (8th 
-4- 

Cir. 2020) (“In the absence of a factual dispute, [defendant] cannot show the district 

court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing.”). Osman waived his right to 

claim third-party interests in this court by stating the funds in the account belonged 

to him. See United States v. Gutierrez, 130 F.3d 330, 332 (8th Cir. 1997), citing

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (“The Supreme Court has 

distinguished between a right that is inadvertently left unasserted and one that is 

intentionally relinquished or abandoned, noting that the latter constitutes a waiver 

that extinguishes a claim altogether.”).

The district court did not plainly err in not sua sponte holding an evidentiary 

hearing and in ruling that there was no question as to ownership of the funds. 

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________