Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hoda SAMUEL, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Hoda Samuel appeals pro se from the district court's minute order denying her “Motion to Enforce Terms of Judgment.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Upon her conviction, Samuel was ordered to pay a $3,100 special assessment, a $20,000 fine, and $3,029,412.64 in restitution. Samuel argues that, because the judgment orders her to pay at least $25 per quarter against these amounts through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), it prevents the government from collecting payments through any other means while she is incarcerated. The judgment's plain language does not support Samuel's assertion. Rather, read as a whole, the judgment contemplates payments outside of the IFRP during Samuel's period of incarceration. This reading is consistent with the purpose of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) and the government's statutory authority to collect from all of an inmate's available resources to satisfy monetary criminal penalties. See Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 612-13, 130 S.Ct. 2533, 177 L.Ed.2d 108 (2010) (MVRA intended to provide crime victims receive full restitution in a timely manner); United States v. Berger, 574 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2009) (describing statutory procedures for collection of fines and restitution). Thus, the district court properly denied Samuel's motion.
We decline to consider Samuel's additional arguments because they are raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Brugnara, 856 F.3d 1198, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-10349
Decided: February 10, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)