Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2002/11/01-6384.htm
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 07:57:40
Document Index: 678589674

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 20', '§ 666', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 228', '§ 3282', '§ 3282', '§ 3282', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 228', '§ 3742', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1']

01-6384 -- U.S. v. Monts -- 11/13/2002
| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added | (40650 bytes) (32470 bytes)
JAMES ARTHUR MONTS, JR.,
No. 01-6384
(D.C. No. 00-CR-110-R)
Teresa Black, Assistant United States Attorney (Robert G. McCampbell, United States Attorney, on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff - Appellee.
The CSRA makes it a federal criminal offense for a person to "willfully fail[] to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000." 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(1). The DPPA likewise makes it a federal felony offense for a person to "willfully fail[] to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 2 years, or is greater than $10,000." 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). For each provision, a "support obligation" means "any amount determined under a court order or an order of an administrative process pursuant to the law of a State . . . to be due from a person for the support and maintenance of a child." 18 U.S.C. § 228(f)(3). Finally, upon a conviction under either provision, "the court shall order restitution under section 3663A in an amount equal to the total unpaid support obligation as it exists at the time of sentencing." 18 U.S.C. § 228(d).
We review challenges to the constitutionality of a statute de novo, United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396, 398 (10th Cir. 1995), and begin the analysis with a presumption of constitutionality, United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000).
Mr. Monts argues that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause because both the CSRA and the DPPA: "(1) regulate an activity that neither constitutes nor involves commerce; (2) lack the prerequisite interstate nexus sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction; (3) are overbroad; and (4) represent an unconstitutional foray by the federal government into domestic relations, a power traditionally reserved to states." Aplt. Br. at 13. Mr. Monts acknowledges that in United States v. Hampshire, 95 F.3d 999, 1001-1006 (10th Cir. 1996), this court considered and rejected these arguments with regard to the CSRA. However, Mr. Monts maintains that two recent Supreme Court cases, Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), suggest that § 228(a) no longer bears a sufficient interstate nexus and is thus unconstitutional despite the reasoning of Hampshire.
We disagree. In Jones, the Supreme Court held that an owner-occupied dwelling not used for any commercial purposes was not property "used" in interstate commerce under the federal arson statute. 529 U.S. at 859. The result in Jones turned on the Court's conclusion that only property "currently used in commerce or in an activity affecting commerce" exhibits a sufficient interstate nexus to satisfy the requirement under the Commerce Clause. Id. As a result, the Jones reasoning merely reaffirms the proposition that Congress can, consistent with its Commerce Clause power, criminalize conduct provided such conduct bears a sufficient interstate nexus as required by United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
In holding that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power in enacting the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA"), the Supreme Court in Morrison essentially reiterated its Lopez analysis and rested its conclusion on the fact that the VAWA failed to satisfy the Lopez requirements. Morrison, 529 U.S. at 613-19. Unlike the VAWA in Morrison, § 228(a) directly involves an activity that is both economic and interstate in nature, specifically, the regulation of a court-ordered obligation to pay money in interstate commerce. Hampshire, 95 F.3d at 1003. Furthermore, unlike the VAWA, § 228(a) contains a jurisdictional element establishing that the activity in question is interstate in nature by requiring as an essential element that the defendant reside in a different state than the child for whom support is owed. 18 U.S.C. § 228(a). And lastly, as discussed in Hampshire, 95 F.2d at 1004, Congress made explicit findings concerning the impact of delinquent parents on interstate commerce, further supporting the conclusion that § 228(a) is within the Lopez framework.
Mr. Monts also attacks the constitutionality of § 228(a) by arguing that it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Mr. Monts bears the burden of distinguishing Hampshire's holding that neither the Ex Post Facto Clause nor the Tenth Amendment are valid bases to attack the constitutionality of § 228(a). Hampshire, 95 F.3d at 1004-06. Though Mr. Monts attempts to distinguish Hampshire by characterizing this as an "as applied" case, Hamphire is controlling.
Though noted in passing, Mr. Monts elected not to brief his federalism and comity objections to § 228(a). Thus, we deem these claims abandoned below and decline to reach them. See O'Connor v. City & County of Denver, 894 F.2d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1990).
After opening a case in March 1996, the Virginia DCSE sent, and Mr. Monts signed for on March 21, 1996, a certified notice informing him that the Virginia DCSE was now representing Ms. Cooper in the enforcement of the support order and directing him to send all future support payments to the Virginia DCSE. Because the support order was from New York, Ms. Cooper resided in Oklahoma and Mr. Monts resided in Virginia, the Virginia DCSE applied to this case its provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Va. Code §§ 20-88.32 to -88.82, which Congress mandated all states adopt by January 1, 1998. 42 U.S.C. § 666(f). Under UIFSA, the Virginia DCSE applied its own Virginia law and procedures to the enforcement action.
Virginia's UIFSA provisions provide for two enforcement methods for an out-of-state support order: administrative enforcement under Article 7 and enforcement after registration under Article 8 . Under Article 7, Va. Code § 20-88.65(A), a party seeking to enforce such a support order may send certain required documents to a support enforcement agency, i.e., the Virginia DCSE. Section 20-88.65(B) then allows the agency, without initially seeking to register the order, to use any authorized administrative procedure to enforce the support order, such as wage garnishment or the filing of a lien. It further provides that "[i]f the obligor does not contest administrative enforcement, the order need not be registered. If the obligor contests the validity or administrative enforcement of the order, the support enforcement agency shall register the order pursuant to" Article 8. Va. Code § 20-88.65(B). The obligor need only contest the administrative enforcement to receive the more rigorous procedural protections provided under Article 8.
By law, you can contest this wage withholding only if you are not the person cited or there is a mistake in the amount of support owed. If you . . . contest this order, you must file a written request for an appeal hearing within 10 days from the date of service of this notice. Send the request to the Hearings Officer, 730 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219-1849. You will be notified of the time and place of the hearing. Pursuant to the section of the Virginia Code cited below, you will be given the opportunity to present your objection to this proposed withholding of earnings. [I]f you . . . disagree with the Hearings Officer's decision, the decision can be appealed to a court of the Commonwealth within 10 days of receipt of the Hearings Officer's decision in accordance with the Section of the Code of Virginia referenced below.
Had Mr. Monts contested the administrative enforcement, under Virginia law, not only would he have received the hearing and appeal opportunity, the Virginia DCSE would also have been required to register the order and to proceed under Article 8. Va. Code § 20-88.65(B). Article 8 itself would have also guaranteed Mr. Monts a hearing upon request in which he could contest the validity or enforcement of the order and in which he could have asserted any defense or contested "the amount of any alleged arrearages." Va. Code § 20-88.71. Because Mr. Monts chose not to contest the administrative enforcement, he has waived his right to do so and cannot now attack the Virginia enforcement in the context of an appeal of his federal criminal prosecution. See, e.g., Micheli v. Director, OWCP, 846 F.2d 632, 635 (10th Cir. 1988). We therefore conclude that New York's six year statute of limitations has no bearing on this case given the facts before this court.
We turn now to the first limitations issue noted above, namely, whether the indictment itself was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. As did the district court, we conclude that because 18 U.S.C. § 228 contains no specific limitations period, the default federal limitations period of five years provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3282 applies to the issue of whether the indictment itself was time-barred. Section 3282 provides that for non-capital offenses, "[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted . . . unless the indictment is found . . . within five years next after such offense shall have been committed." 18 U.S.C. § 3282. The offenses charged were the failure to pay a support obligation which remained unpaid for longer than one year (Count 1) or longer than two years (Count 2). Because we determined above that Mr. Monts' obligation to pay support was a viable obligation as determined by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1996, we conclude that the offenses charged were committed within five years of the indictment, and as such, § 3282 was no bar to the prosecution.
At the close of the government's case, Mr. Monts moved for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a) on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction relying upon his limitations argument. We review the record de novo when reviewing both the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction and the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Vallo, 238 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir. 2001). The jury's verdict will be upheld if, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Conviction on both counts required the government to prove (1) willful failure to pay, (2) a past due support obligation with respect to a child, (3) who resides in another State. 18 U.S.C. §§ 228(a)(1), (a)(3). Conviction on Count 1 also required proof that the support obligation either remained unpaid for more than one year or was greater than $5,000. 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(1). Conviction on Count 2 also required proof that the support obligation either remained unpaid for more than two years or was greater than $10,000. 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). A "support obligation" means "any amount determined under a court order or an order of an administrative process pursuant to the law of a State . . . to be due from a person for the support and maintenance of a child." 18 U.S.C. § 228(f)(3).
When reviewing a district court's sentencing determination, we must "accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and [must] give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts." 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). A district court's determination of what may be properly considered in assessing "loss" under the Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Williams, 50 F.3d 863, 864 (10th Cir. 1995).
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(4)(A) directs the district court to increase the base offense level by two levels if "the offense involved more than minimal planning." Application Note One under § 2B1.1 directs the reader to §1B1.1 for the definition of "more than minimal planning." U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 n.1. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 states that one situation warranting the adjustment is where there is more planning than is typical for committing the offense in a simple form. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 n.1(f); see, e.g., United States v. Archuletta, 231 F.3d 682, 684 (10th Cir. 2000).
It just strikes me the defendant went to great lengths to ­ not only did he not pay child support, he went to great lengths to avoid paying child support by his various efforts of moving, and not filing tax returns, and generally being obstructive with the authorities on this. So it just strikes me that it's not a simple ­ just simply a failure to pay, it's much more than that.
Sent. Tr. at 7. The district court's imposition of the adjustment for more than minimal planning is supported by adequate evidence. See United States v. Copus, 110 F.3d 1529, 1537 (10th Cir. 1997).
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2002/11/01-6384.htm.