Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Dean MEARS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-29
Citations: 709 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 17-7163
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Dean MEARS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Dean MEARS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7163
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 8, 2018
Decided: January 29, 2018
Richard Dean Mears, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Childs, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Dean Mears appeals the district court's order overruling Mears' objection to the writ of continuing garnishment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Mears, No. 1:04-cr-00212-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Mears takes issue with the district court's statement that he did not claim that his 401(k) retirement plan is exempt property. Any error was harmless, because such retirement plan benefits are subject to garnishment for criminal restitution. United States v. DeCay, 620 F.3d 534, 541 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Hosking, 567 F.3d 329, 334 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006),