Court Opinion

ID: 9399915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 18:00:51.444005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.857559
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40469        Document: 00516776356             Page: 1       Date Filed: 06/06/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-40469
                                                                           FILED
                                                                        June 6, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Anson Chi,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:12-CR-155-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Anson Chi pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm and
   malicious use of explosive materials and was sentenced to 240 months of
   imprisonment. The district court also imposed restitution in the amount of
   $28,127.77. In 2022, the Government filed a motion for a turnover order,
   asserting that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) then held $1,720.02 in cash in

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40469      Document: 00516776356           Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                     No. 22-40469

   Chi’s inmate trust account. The district court granted the motion and issued
   a turnover order. Chi now appeals. The Government has filed an opposed
   motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, a motion for an
   extension of time to file a merits brief.
          Chi raises several issues regarding the district court’s initial
   restitution judgment, its adjudication of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, our
   decisions in his various appeals, and prosecutorial misconduct. However, we
   lack jurisdiction to consider rulings not designated in Chi’s notice of appeal,
   as well as decisions in Chi’s other appeals. See United States v. Clayton, 613
   F.3d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 2010); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1); see generally 28
   U.S.C. § 1291.
          We review the district court’s turnover order for an abuse of
   discretion standard and will only reverse “if the court has acted in an
   unreasonable or arbitrary manner.” Santibanez v. Wier McMahon & Co., 105
   F.3d 234, 239 (5th Cir. 1997). In his brief, Chi states that his mother
   deposited $2,000 of his COVID-19 stimulus funds from the IRS into his
   inmate trust account.          Because the stimulus payment constituted
   “substantial resources from any source” and did not qualify for any
   exemptions to tax levy, federal and state law permitted the district court’s
   turnover order. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a), (c); Tex.
   Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 31.002(a); United States v. Stark, 56 F.4th
   1039, 1040–41 (5th Cir. 2023) (per curiam); United States v. Diehl, 848 F.3d
   629, 631–33 (5th Cir. 2017).
          To the extent Chi argues that the district court’s turnover was
   unnecessary due to his agreement with the BOP to pay restitution in monthly
   installments, an inmate’s compliance with a payment schedule does not
   preclude the Government from using other means of collection when, as
   here, the judgment provides that restitution is due immediately. See Diehl,

                                               2
Case: 22-40469     Document: 00516776356          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                   No. 22-40469

   848 F.3d at 633–35. While Chi argues that the district court was required to
   determine the source of his funds before issuing the turnover order, he cites
   only nonbinding law from the Eighth Circuit to support his claims.
          Chi also argues that the district court’s turnover order prevented him
   from paying court costs and fees, which prevented him from accessing the
   courts. However, he has not alleged that he was prevented from preparing
   and transmitting legal documents or shown that he has a nonfrivolous legal
   claim that was impeded. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351–53 (1996);
   Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 821 (5th Cir. 1993). As to Chi’s argument
   that he was not afforded notice or a meaningful opportunity to respond to the
   Government’s motion, he has not demonstrated that any response he may
   have filed would have affected the district court’s decision to enter the
   turnover order. See United States v. Rand, 924 F.3d 140, 144–45 (5th Cir.
   2019) (per curiam).
          The appeal of the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in
   part and DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction. The Government’s
   motion for summary affirmance and alternative motion for an extension of
   time to file a brief are DENIED.

                                            3