Opinion ID: 3163255
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Restitution Order and the Garnishments

Text: Mr. Martinez was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy, which required the district court to order Mr. Martinez to pay restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a), (c) (2012) (requiring restitution for any crime in which a victim “has suffered . . . pecuniary loss”). Complying with this requirement, the district court ordered roughly $2.7 million in restitution. Mr. Martinez was ordered to pay this amount through monthly installments based on a percentage of his disposable income. But upon leaving prison, Mr. Martinez was unable to obtain steady employment and, as a result, has owed relatively little through the courtordered payment schedule. Mr. Martinez contends that he has satisfied that schedule, and the government does not argue to the contrary. Nonetheless, the government served writs of garnishment for two of Mr. Martinez’s retirement accounts. Together, these accounts were worth roughly $470,000, but Mr. Martinez did not have immediate access to those funds because the accounts had not yet entered distribution status. In district court, Mr. Martinez moved to quash the writs of garnishment, arguing in part that they would enforce a debt not yet owed. The district court denied the motion to quash, and Mr. and Ms. Martinez appeal. To decide this appeal, we ask: Can the government garnish assets beyond the amount currently due under Mr. Martinez’s court-ordered 3 payment schedule? We conclude that the government cannot do so; as a result, we reverse. 1