Court Opinion

ID: 9403012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 00:00:50.545086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.799536
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60586       Document: 00516791855             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                 June 19, 2023
                                     No. 22-60586
                                   Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
                                   ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Dwayne G. Deer,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Mississippi
                              USDC No. 3:08-CR-89-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Dwayne G. Deer was ordered to pay restitution after pleading guilty
   in 2008 to conspiracy to commit bank fraud. In 2022, pursuant to the
   Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) and the Federal Debt
   Collection Procedures Act, the Government successfully applied to the

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-60586        Document: 00516791855             Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                        No. 22-60586

   district court to enforce the restitution order by garnishing Deer’s earnings
   and a 401(k)-retirement account in his name. Deer now appeals the order of
   garnishment. This court generally examines questions of law de novo but
   otherwise reviews garnishment orders for an abuse of discretion. United
   States v. Clark, 990 F.3d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 2021).
           Arguing that the restitution order is void or else defective on various
   statutory and constitutional grounds, Deer asks this court to vacate, modify,
   or otherwise act upon it. 1 However, his appeal from the garnishment
   proceeding did not bring up the restitution order for review. See United States
   v. Clayton, 613 F.3d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Onyeri,
   996 F.3d 274, 281-83 (5th Cir. 2021). To the extent Deer seeks to appeal the
   restitution order, that portion of the appeal is DISMISSED. See Clayton,
   613 F.3d at 594.
           Deer also disputed the restitution order’s validity during his
   garnishment proceeding in the district court. As that court recognized, a
   judgment debtor “may not use a garnishment proceeding to challenge the
   underlying judgment and restitution order in his case.” Onyeri, 996 F.3d at
   281.    Although Deer maintains that jurisdictional defects in a prior
   proceeding are always open to attack, he is mistaken. See Travelers Indemn.
   Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137, 152-53 (2009); United States v. Parker, 927 F.3d
   374, 381 n.9 (5th Cir. 2019). In any event, the one argument that he presents
   as jurisdictional cannot be viewed as such. See Dolan v. United States,
   560 U.S. 605 (2010). Deer accordingly fails to show that the district court
   erred in finding his collateral attacks on the restitution order barred.

           _____________________
           1
             Deer entered a plea agreement with the Government that includes a waiver of his
   right to appeal or otherwise challenge his conviction and sentence. To the extent the
   Government asks us to enforce the waiver, the issue is pretermitted. See United States v.
   Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2006).

                                                  2
Case: 22-60586      Document: 00516791855          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60586

          Next, Deer argues that the enforcement of liens securing restitution
   debt is subject to a 10-year statute of limitations based on 26 U.S.C.
   § 6502(a)(1) and related provisions of the Revenue Code. As Deer notes, the
   MVRA makes restitution enforceable in the same manner as federal tax liens.
   See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c), (f). It does not follow that provisions of the Revenue
   Code apply in this context as a matter of course, however. See United States
   v. Tilford, 810 F.3d 370, 372 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Criminal restitution, even as a
   penalty for a failure to pay taxes, is not a tax.”); United States v. Clark,
   990 F.3d 404, 409 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2021). Furthermore, § 3613 makes
   restitution under the MVRA enforceable “[n]otwithstanding any other
   Federal law,” and we have construed that language as overriding any
   conflicting provisions. § 3613(a); see United States v. Elashi, 789 F.3d 547,
   551-53 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Deer also contends that the Government failed to comply with the
   requirements of § 3612(d) and (e), but he again fails to show that the
   provisions invoked apply here. Nor has he shown that his 401(k) account is
   exempt from garnishment. See United States v. DeCay, 620 F.3d 534, 540-41
   (5th Cir. 2010). Deer’s remaining arguments are unavailing because they fail
   to suggest any error on the part of the district court or because they are
   inadequately briefed. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th
   Cir. 2010). This court construes pro se filings liberally, but even pro se
   litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
   222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the order of garnishment is
   AFFIRMED.
          AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

                                             3