Court Opinion

ID: 9379149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 20:00:37.027547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:50.108592
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12922    Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12922
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       PATRICK CONNOLLY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:09-cr-00047-MSS-DCI-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12922     Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2023    Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12922

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Patrick Connolly, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s grant of the government’s motion to authorize a payment
       of the funds in Connolly’s Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) trust account
       towards his outstanding criminal restitution judgment. Connolly
       argues that because the district court imposed a payment schedule
       that began upon his release from prison, the district court did not
       have the authority to authorize a payment of funds from his BOP
       trust account while he was still incarcerated. Further, Connolly
       argues that the funds did not qualify as “substantial resources” for
       purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n).
              We review the district court’s order directing the BOP to re-
       mit funds from an inmate’s trust account for abuse of discretion.
       See United States v. White, 663 F.3d 1207, 1215 (11th Cir. 2011).
       For context, an inmate trust account allows the BOP to maintain
       an inmate’s money while he is incarcerated, including money re-
       ceived from family, friends, and prison employment. See 28 C.F.R.
       §§ 506.1, 545.11.
              The relevant statutory scheme for the issuance and enforce-
       ment of restitution orders is contained in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3572, 3613,
       and 3664. The district court, not the government, is charged with
       determining how a defendant is to pay restitution. See 18 U.S.C. §
       3664(f)(2) (“Upon determination of the amount of restitution owed
USCA11 Case: 22-12922      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-12922               Opinion of the Court                         3

       to each victim, the court shall . . . specify in the restitution order
       the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the res-
       titution is to be paid . . . .”). A person who owes restitution must
       pay immediately, unless, in the interest of justice, the court pro-
       vides for payment on a date certain or in installments. Id. §
       3572(d)(1). A defendant must notify the court “of any material
       change” in his economic circumstances that might affect his ability
       to pay, and upon notice, the court may, on its own motion or mo-
       tion of any party, adjust the payment schedule, “or require imme-
       diate payment in full, as the interests of justice require.” Id. §
       3572(d)(3).
               Sections 3613 and 3664 allow the government to enforce an
       order of restitution as if it were a lien or civil judgment. See id. §
       3613(a), (c), (f); id. § 3664(m). Thus, the enforcement can be against
       all the defendant’s property or rights to property except property
       exempt from levy for payment of federal income taxes, which in-
       cludes (1) wearing apparel and school books, (2) fuel, provisions,
       furniture, and personal effects; (3) books and tools of a trade; (4)
       unemployment benefits; (5) undelivered mail; (6) certain annuity
       and pension payments; (7) workmen’s compensation; (8) judg-
       ments for support of minor children; (9) certain service-connected
       disability payments; and (10) assistance under the Job Training
       Partnership Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(1)-(8),
       (10), (12). And the government may enforce an order of restitution
       by “all other available and reasonable means.” 18 U.S.C. §
       3664(m)(1)(A). Section 3664 further states that, upon notice of a
       material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances, the
USCA11 Case: 22-12922      Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12922

       court may, on its own motion, or the motion of any party, adjust
       the payment schedule, or require immediate payment in full, “as
       the interests of justice require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). Finally,
               [i]f a person obligated to provide restitution, or pay a
               fine, receives substantial resources from any source,
               including inheritance, settlement, or other judgment,
               during a period of incarceration, such person shall be
               required to apply the value of such resources to any
               restitution or fine still owed.
       Id. § 3664(n).
               Here, the district court did not err in granting the govern-
       ment’s motion. The statutory scheme supports the district court’s
       order granting the government’s motion to authorize the payment
       from Connolly’s trust account to pay his outstanding criminal judg-
       ment balance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n). Under the MVRA and §
       3664, the government is responsible for collecting restitution for
       victims, and a defendant who receives substantial resources from
       any source while incarcerated is required to apply its value to res-
       titution still owed. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3612(c), 3664(m)(1)(A), (n). Be-
       cause the funds in Connolly’s trust account came from his wife,
       which constitutes “any source,” the district court had authority to
       grant the government’s motion to seize the funds from Connolly’s
       account. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a), (f); 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n). Addition-
       ally, the restitution order constituted a lien against all of Connolly’s
       property and rights to property, and that lien attached to the funds
       in Connolly’s BOP trust account. See id. § 3613(a), (c), (f); id. §
       3664(m). And, because the property is cash, it does not fall within
USCA11 Case: 22-12922     Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2023    Page: 5 of 5

       22-12922               Opinion of the Court                       5

       the exemptions in § 3613(a)(1). See id. § 3613(a)(1) (12); 26 U.S.C.
       § 6334(a)(1)-(8), (10). While the schedule of payments does note
       that Connolly’s required monthly payments will begin upon his re-
       lease from custody, the language of § 3664 does not preclude the
       court from altering the payment schedule or requiring another
       form of payment upon a defendant’s receipt of more resources.
       § 3664(k), (n). Further, the court’s grant of the government’s mo-
       tion to authorize the payment from Connolly’s account effectively
       modified the payment plan by requiring a payment before the start
       of the original plan, as it was permitted to do under § 3664(k) and
       § 3572(d)(3).
             AFFIRMED.