Opinion ID: 46359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: lips’s objections.

Text: On April 21, 1998, Chaney Phillips was convicted of, inter alia, mail fraud and money On the morning of July 30, the day of Phillaundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 lips’s scheduled sentencing, he executed an inand 1957, respectively. Before sentencing, a ter vivos donation of his interest in the Hornsprobation officer met with him to determine by succession to his sons. Later that day, he the value of his financial assets for inclusion in was sentenced to 97 months’ incarceration and a presentence investigation report (“PSR”). In $225,587.56 in restitution. At no time during answer to a specific question about inherited his sentencing hearing did he disclose the doproperty, Phillips disclosed that he had a five nation he had made that morning. percent interest in a succession from his friend Stanley Hornsby but claimed the interest was Phillips appealed his convictions and initial of small value and was entangled in litigation. sentence. Certain of his convictions were vaBased on these representations, the officer as- cated, and on November 20, 2000, he was resumed the interest was de minimis and did not sentenced to pay $217,587.56 in restitution. include it in the PSR. Actually, however, months before Phillips’s conversation with the When it discovered Phillips’s gift, the govprobation officer, the litigation had been com- ernment brought this action, alleging that the pleted, and Phillips had been awarded $32,600, conveyance constituted a fraudulent transfer under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 3302 et seq.,