Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed an order requiring Ronald Myers to turn over funds accumulated in his inmate trust account and apply them to unpaid restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n). The court held that the statute applies to substantial aggregated deposits from multiple sources, including family and friends, and is not limited to one-time windfalls or sudden financial injections. The court also rejected challenges concerning the restitution judgment and the denial of an evidentiary hearing; Judge McKeown dissented regarding the required transaction-by-transaction analysis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) applies to substantial sums formed by the gradual accumulation of deposits from multiple sources, including family and friends, rather than only to a one-time payment from a single source.
- Whether applying § 3664(n) to the accumulated deposits unlawfully superseded or exceeded the terms of Myers's restitution judgment.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing and relying on documentary account records and a conservative method for segregating prison wages from other funds.
Holdings
- Section 3664(n) applies to substantial aggregated sums from multiple, independent sources, including periodic deposits from family and friends that gradually accrue in an inmate's trust account; it is not limited to one-time financial windfalls or sudden financial injections.
- The turnover order did not unlawfully supersede the restitution judgment because § 3664(n) creates an automatic payment obligation for substantial resources received during incarceration, and the judgment's requirement that payments be at least 25 percent of monthly gross earnings established a floor rather than a ceiling.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on the composition of Myers's trust account and relying on the comprehensive Bureau of Prisons ledger and a conservative method of accounting for prison wages.
Key quotations
“Because § 3664(n) authorizes a district court to turn over periodic deposits that substantially accrue in an inmate’s account, we affirm.” (4)
“§ 3664(n) applies not just to one-time financial windfalls, but also to substantial aggregated sums from multiple sources—like family and friends—that gradually accrue in an inmate’s trust account.” (7)
“That language is self-executing—a district court need not amend an inmate’s restitution order before authorizing turnover under § 3664(n).” (18)
“Thus, the district court’s turnover order did not unlawfully override the judgment’s restitution provisions. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on the composition of Myers’s trust account.” (22)
Factual background
Myers pleaded guilty in 2005 to possessing an implement for counterfeiting state securities and transporting a stolen motor vehicle across state lines. The district court ordered him to pay $40,406 in restitution, and he remained in federal custody after reincarceration on other charges. From 2013 onward, more than $30,500 was deposited into his inmate trust account, including $27,872 from family and friends and $2,747 in prison wages; by late 2022, the account held approximately $1,622. The government sought turnover of the remaining non-wage funds under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n), and the district court ordered $1,233.73 applied to restitution.
Procedural history
Myers pleaded guilty in 2005 and received a restitution order requiring immediate payment of $40,406, with payments of at least 25 percent of monthly gross earnings while incarcerated. After the government identified substantial accumulated deposits from family and friends in Myers's inmate trust account, the district court ordered $1,233.73 turned over under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) and denied an evidentiary hearing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.