H on. Sam uel Der- Y eghiayan, D is tr ic t J ud ge f or the N orther n  Dis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1430 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. S HA KIR M EU X, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 03 C R 39

— Ch ri st oph er A . N uec hterli en, Magistrate Judg e.
A RGUED N OVE MBE R 10, 2009

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 26, 2010

B ef or e P O SNER an d F LA UM, C ircu it Judges , a nd D ER Y EG HI AY AN, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  D ER-Y EG HI AY AN, D i s t r i ctJudg e . S ha k i r M eu x was s en t e n c e d i n th e i n s t a n tc a s e t o a t e r m o fi mpr i s o n me nt and w as or dered to p ay a m andatory res ti tuti on. A l l post
j ud gm en t proc eed ings w ere r eferred by the district cou rt2 N o. 09

- 1430 j ud ge to the m agi str ate j u d ge . The m agi str ate j ud ge gr anted the Governm ent’ s m oti on f or turno ver of fu nd s. M eux appeal s the r uli n g ofthe m agi str ate j ud ge. Fo r th e r ea so ns s ta te d b el o w, we affi r m the rul i ngo fthe m agi str ate j ud ge.

I . B a c kg r o und Sh ak ir M eu x w as se n te n c ed on O c to b er 24 , 200 3, in the instan t c as e ( Case N um ber03 CR 39) to a ter m o f i m pri sonm en t of 3 7 m onths. H e was al so or dered to pay a m anda tor y r est i tuti on o f$1 34, 218. 52, pursuant to 18 U
. S.C . § 36 63A ofthe M andator y Vi cti m s Res ti tuti on Act ( M VRA )
. On Febr uary 8 , 20 08, the Gover nm ent fi l ed w i th the di str i c t co urt an “Agree d M oti on f orOrder D i r e c t i n g E mp l o y e r t o Ma k e D e d u c t i o n s f r o m E mpl o y ee ’ s I nc o m e an d Pa y t o the Uni te d S ta te s. ” On F eb r uar y 1 1, 20 08 , t h e di str i ct c ourtj ud ge re fer re d the m atterto the m agi str ate j ud ge f oral l post
-j ud gm en t pr oceedi ngs. On Fe b ru ary 1 4, 20 08, pursuant to the a gr eed m oti on, the m agi str ate j ud ge or dered that$5 0 be gar ni s he d f r o m e a c h o f M e ux ’ s pa y c he c k s t o b e pa i d to the Unite d Sta tes
. I n an unre l ate d cri m i nal m att er( Case N um ber0 1 CR 18 5) , the U ni ted S tat es M ar shalhad c u s t o d y o f$ 4 , 8 8 1
. 0 0 th a tb e l o n g e d t o Me u x . O n D e c e mber15 , 20 08 , the Gove rnm ent fi l ed a M oti on f or Turnovero fFunds forRest i tuti on, se eking tur novero f the $ 4, 881. 00. The r eco rd r eflects that the $ 4, 881. 00 was s ei ze d i n 2 00 1 an d the r e i s no ind i ca ti o n tha t M eu x sh ow ed a ny i nt erest in reclaim ing the $4,881. 00 before th e fi ling of th e G overn m en t’s M otion for T u rnov er,N o. 09

- 1430 3 approxi m ate l y s eve n years later

. On J anuary30 , 20 09, a he ar i ngwas he l d b efo r e th e m ag i st r at e j udg e r eg ar di ng th e Go v e r nme nt ’ s Mo t i o n f o r T urno v e r, a nd o n F e br ua r y 2 , 2 00 9, the magi st r at e j ud ge g r an te d the Go ve r nm ent’ s m oti on. M eux appeal s the F eb ruary 2, 20 09 rul i ng o fthe m agi str ate j ud ge.

I I . Discussi on M e ux a r g ue s tha tthe Go v e r nme nts houl d ha v e fi l e d a m oti on f orga rni shm ent o fthe $4, 881. 00, pursuant to 28 U
. S. C. § 3 205 ofthe Feder alDebt Col l ec tio n Pro cedures A ct ( FDC PA ) , 28 U
. S. C. §§ 3001 e tseq. as opp ose d to fi l i ng the M oti on f orTurnove r. M eux al so ar gues that the m agi str ate j ud ge was w i thout j uri sdic ti on t o enter a fi na l o rderdi re cti ng tha t the $4, 881. 00 be turned ov er to the Go ve r nm en t i n par ti als at i sf ac ti o n o fthe r es ti tu
tion ord er. W e fi rs t deci de w hetherwe h av e j uri sdic ti on t o hear th is ap peal

. Pursuant to 28 U
. S. C. § 1 291, we have j uri sd i ct i o n t o he ar“ appe al s f r o m a l l fi na l de ci si o ns o fthe di s t r i c tc o ur t s o fthe Uni t e d S t a t e s . . . . ” Id. Pursuant to 28 U
. S. C . § 3 008, “[ a] di str i ct c ourto fthe U ni ted S tat es m ay ass i gn i ts du ti es i n proce edi ngs und er this c hapter to a Un i ted S ta te s m agi str ate j ud ge to the e xtent no t i nconsi ste nt with the Const i tuti on and l aw s ofthe U ni ted St at es. ” Id. The m agi str ate j ud ge i n the i nstant case , afteras si gnm ent b y the di str i ct c ourt, ente re d a fi nal j ud gm ent. Sin c e t h e d ist ric t c ou rtj u d ge p ro p er ly ass i g ne d i t s du t i e s r e l a t i ngt o p o s t
-j ud g men tp r oceedi ngs t o the m agis tr ate j ud ge, and the m agi str ate4 N o. 09

- 1430 j ud ge pu rs uant to thatas si gn m ent e nter ed a fi nal j ud gm en t, w e hav e ap p ell ate j urisd iction i n th is m atter. W e now turn to the i ssue of w hether th e m agis tr ate j ud ge ha d j urisd ic tion to rule on th e G overn m en t’s M oti on f or Turnover
. A l though the m agi str ate j ud ge co u ld h ave ord ered the tu rnov er of th e $4,881.00 i n garni sh m en t pr o ce eding s unde r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 3 20 5 o fthe F DCPA , the m ag i st r at e j udg e was no t l i m i te d t o c o ndu cti ng g ar ni shm ent pr oce edi ngs. A s ind i cate d above , p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 3 0 0 8 , a “ d i s t r i c t c o u r to ft he U ni ted S tat es m ay ass i gn i ts du ti es i n proc eedi ngs under th i s ch apt erto a Uni te d S ta te s m ag i st r at e j udg e to the e x te ntn o ti n c o n s i s t e n twi th th e C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d l a ws ofthe U ni ted S tat es. ” Id. T he F DCPA pr o vi des tha t th e avai l abi l i ty ofpro ceedi ng s, such as gar ni shm ent pr oceedi n gs , a s a m echani sm f orco l l ecting debts “s hal l not be c onst rued to curt ai l o r l i m i t the r i ght o fthe U ni ted Sta te s und erany othe r Feder all aw o r any S tat e l aw to coll ect an y fine , pe n a lt y , assess m en t, restitut ion, or f orfei t u re ari sing in a crim inal case.” 28 U

. S. C
. § 3003(b)(2). I n additi on, pursuant to 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 613( a) and ( f ) o f the F DC PA , the U ni ted S tat es i s a uthor i zed to enf or ce a j ud gm e nti mpo s i nga fi ne o r r e s t i t ut i o n “ i n a c c o r da nc e w i th the prac ti ces and procedu re s f orthe enf or cem ent o f a c i v i l j ud g men tu nd e r F e de r a l l a w o r S t a t e l a w. ” 18 U .S.C . § 3 6 1 3 ( a ), (f); s e eal s o e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hos ki ng, 5 6 7F
. 3 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 4

- 3 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. U nd er 18 U. S
. C. § 3613 ( c) of the FDC PA , once the re sti tuti on w as ord er ed i n this cas e, al l o fM eux’s pro pertybec am e s ubj ect to a l i en. The m agi str ate j ud ge, havi ng be en as si gn ed by the di str i ct c ourtj ud ge the duti es to co n du ct a l l post
-N o. 09

- 1430 5 j ud gm ent pr oce edi ngs, had auth or ity i n the i nstant case to hol d a hear i ng and to o rderthe turno vero ffu nd s t o satisfy that lien . L iens bas ed on restitut ion orde rs “are tr eat ed l i ke tax l i ens . . . so that theyar e ‘ effecti ve aga i nst eve ryi nter esti n proper ty acco rded a t axpayerbyst ate l a w. . . . ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kol l i ntzas , 50 1 F
. 3d 796, 80 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) (q u oti ng i n part U nited Sta tes v. D enlin ger, 98 2 F .2d 23 3, 23 5 (7 th C ir. 19 92 )); s e ealso H o s ki ng, 56 7 F. 3d at 335 ( sta ti ng tha t “ § 3 613 tr ea ts a r est i tuti on or d e r u n d er th e M V R A like a ta x liab ility ” a n d “[t ]h is m eans that any pr oper ty th e I RS ca n re ach to sa ti sfy a ta x l i en, a s en te nc i ngc o ur t ca n a l so r ea ch in a r es ti tu
ti on o rder ”)
. Thus, the $4, 881. 00 w as sub j ec t to a l i en to sa ti sfy the r es ti tu ti o n o bl i g at i o n. I n add i ti on, the re cor d re fl ects that M eux w as provi ded wi the ss en ti al l y the s ame due pr o ce ss pr o te ct i o ns he w oul d have b een accor ded i n garni shm ent pr oce edi ngs. Speci fi cal l y, M eux w as provi ded w i th noti ce of the M oti on f o r Tur no ve r, was ap po i nt ed co uns elt o r epr es en t M eu x relating to the m otion , a n d w as gran ted a hearing be fore th e m ag i st r at e j udg e to a ddr es s th e m o ti o n. M eu x owed th e Uni te d St at es $ 13 4, 21 8. 52 i n r es ti tu ti o n. The Uni te d S ta te s i s unmi st ak ab l y e nt i tl ed to c o l l ec t th e restitut ion ow ed by M eu x. M eu x h ad his d ay in cou rt and the m agi str ate j ud ge proper l y o rder ed the turno ver o fthe $ 4, 88 1. 00 , wh ic h was i n pa r ti als at i sf ac ti o n o fthe r es ti t u t i o n a mo u n t
. Me u x h a s n o ts h o wna n y me a ni ng fulr el i efhe c ang ain fr o m thi s appeal , no r ha s M eu x shown any re aso n to di sturb the o rdero fthe m agi str ate j u d ge .6 N o. 09

- 1430 I I I . Concl usio n Forthe abov e s tat ed re aso ns, we A FFIRM the ruli ng o f th e m ag i st r at e j udg e g r an tingthe Turno ve r M o ti o n.

2- 26- 10