United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50046

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Abelardo Dominguez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-36-1

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Abelardo Dominguez, federal prisoner # 83259-080, pleaded 

guilty to fraud and making false statements (count three) and engaging in 

monetary transactions (count eight) and was sentenced to 36 months of 

imprisonment for each offense, to be served concurrently; one year of 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

September 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50046 Document: 00515557851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
No. 20-50046

2

supervised release on count three and three years of supervised release on 

count eight, to be served concurrently; a $10,000 fine; $1,971,072.45 in 

restitution; and a $200 special assessment. He appeals a final order of 

garnishment of his Individual Retirement Account (IRA), which the 

Government obtained to enforce the restitution order. According to 

Dominguez, the IRA constituted “other income” that was exempt from 

garnishment under 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(8), because the IRA was necessary 

to comply with a state child support judgment, requiring him to pay a total of

$1227 per month.

We “review garnishment orders for abuse of discretion.” United 

States v. Tilford, 810 F.3d 370, 371 (5th Cir. 2016). The district court’s 

interpretation of a statute is a conclusion of law, which is reviewed de novo, 

and fact findings are reviewed for clear error. Id. “A trial court abuses its 

discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly 

erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Crawley, 533 F.3d 

349, 358 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To establish that the IRA was exempt from garnishment, Dominguez 

was required to show that it fell within the meaning of the term “other 

income” in § 6334(a)(8) and that it was necessary to comply with the child 

support judgment. See § 6334(a)(8); 28 U.S.C. §§ 3014(b)(2) and 

3205(c)(5). Dominguez has not cited any authority supporting his argument 

that his IRA constitutes “other income” necessary to comply with the child 

support judgment. We need not resolve this issue because Dominguez has 

not met his burden to show that the IRA was necessary to comply with the 

child support judgment. See §§ 3014(b)(2) and 3205(c)(5).

The presentence report provided detailed information concerning 

Dominguez’s income, assets, and liabilities and stated that his total net worth 

was $4,313,147.97. Prior to his incarceration, Dominguez had a monthly 

Case: 20-50046 Document: 00515557851 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
No. 20-50046

3

income of approximately $11,500 including $4,500 from a business, which 

renovated and rented properties; his monthly expenses, including child 

support, were approximately $5,501. Although some of his properties were 

forfeited to the Government, Dominguez did not argue or show in the district 

court or on appeal that he no longer receives $4,500 in monthly rental 

income. Given that Dominguez has substantial assets and ongoing rental 

income, he has not shown that his IRA was necessary for him to comply with 

the child support judgment. Therefore, he has not shown that the district 

court abused its discretion by granting the Government’s motion for a final 

order of garnishment. See Tilford, 810 F.3d at 371.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-50046 Document: 00515557851 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/09/2020