UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MARQUES ALAN CHARGING CROW, Defendant - Appellant. No. 22-8011 (D.C. No. 2:20-CR -00122-SWS-1) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before McHUGH , MORITZ , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Federal inmate Marques Alan Charging Crow, pro se, appeals the district court’s order authorizing payment of re stitution from his inmate trust account. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Mr. Charging Crow was convicted of severa l federal offenses in 2020. He was sentenced to 456 months in prison and orde red to pay $8478.85 in restitution. On November 4, 2021, the United States file d a “Motion To Authorize Payment From

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This or der and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 1, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 22-8011 Document: 010110776192 Date Filed: 12/01/2022 Page: 12 Inmate Trust Account” requesting that the dist rict court enter an order authorizing the Bureau of Prisons “to turnover to the Cler k of Court $2,000.00 he ld in [Mr. Charging Crow’s] inmate trust account as payment toward the Court ordered restitution.” R., Vol. 1 at 48. That same day, the United States mailed a copy of the motion to Mr. Charging Crow, first-class postage prepaid. Under Local Rule 7.1(b)(1)(B), Mr. Ch arging Crow had “fourteen (14) days after the filing of the motion to file a written response . . . in opposition to the motion.” The Rule further provides that “[t] he Court may, in its discretion, consider the failure of a responding party to file a timely response as a confession of the motion.” Id. Having received no response, on November 29, 2021, the district court entered an order authorizing the payment. But on February 18, 2022, Mr. Charging Crow filed a response in opposition to the motion to authorize payment. He alleged that the source of the funds was an annuity pa yment from the Eastern Shoshone Native American tribe, which “[is] exempt from seizure,” and asked the court “deny the motion [for authorization] and restore the fund s immediately.” R., Vol. 1 at 56. The court denied the motion the same day it was filed. In addition to noting the belated response, the court rejected Mr. Charging Crow’s “contenti on [on the merits] that his Eastern Shoshone annuity payments are exem pt from seizure to pa y back restitution.” Id. at 58-59 (footnote and internal quotati on marks omitted). Mr. Charging Crow appeals. Appellate Case: 22-8011 Document: 010110776192 Date Filed: 12/01/2022 Page: 23 “We review the district court’ s interpretation of the statute de novo and its decision to authorize payment under [18 U. S.C.] § 3664(n) for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Kidd , 23 F.4th 781, 785 (8th Cir. 2022). Mr. Charging Crow’s brief on appeal c ontains two arguments: (1) “[u]nder 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(6), the funds were exempt from colle ction because they were dispersed from a Native American annuity fund”; and (2) he was denied due process when the court “encumber[e d] . . . the funds without first notifying [him] and providing an opportunity to be heard.” Ap lt. Opening Br. at 3. He is mistaken. “[A]n order of restitution . . . is a lie n in favor of the United States on all property and rights to property of the person [ordered to pa y restitution] as if the liability of the person . . . were a liability for a ta x assessed under the Internal Revenue Code.” 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c). To be sure, the Internal Revenue Code exempts certain property from levy, including [a]nnuity or pension payments under the Railroad Retirement Act, benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, special pension payments received by a person whose name has been entered on the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Me dal of Honor roll . . ., and annuities based on retired or retainer pay un der chapter 73 of title 10 of the United States Code. 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(6). But none of the ex emptions include annuity payments from a Native American tribe. There is also no merit to Mr. Chargi ng Crow’s argument that he was denied due process. The United St ates served a copy of its mo tion on him, and the district court promptly considered his belated res ponse in opposition and en tered its order. Appellate Case: 22-8011 Document: 010110776192 Date Filed: 12/01/2022 Page: 34 Nothing more was required. See Elliott v. Martinez , 675 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The core of due proce ss is the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” (internal quot ation marks omitted)). The judgment of the distri ct court is affirmed. We grant Mr. Charging Crow’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and fees.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 22-8011 Document: 010110776192 Date Filed: 12/01/2022 Page: 4