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. Gary S. CHRISTENSEN, Defendant-Appellant, Alliance Bank of Arizona, a division of Western Alliance Bank; et al., Real-parties-in-interest.
MEMORANDUM **
Gary S. Christensen appeals pro se from the district court's order granting the government's motions for garnishment disposition under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(7), to satisfy Christensen's restitution obligation, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a), 3663A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court correctly found that Christensen's objections to the garnishment writs were untimely filed, and Christensen had provided no good cause or excusable neglect for the delay. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). Therefore, the district court did not err by denying the objections and granting the government's motions for disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(7) (“After the garnishee files an answer and if no hearing is requested within the required time period, the court shall promptly enter an order directing the garnishee as to the disposition of the judgment debtor's nonexempt interest in such property.”).
In any event, Christensen's objections to the garnishment, which he renews on appeal, also fail on the merits. Christensen has not shown that the district court erred in declining to stay the garnishment proceedings pending his challenge to the underlying restitution order. He has also failed to support his argument that the district court's partial grant of coram nobis relief affects the instant garnishment disposition order.1 Christensen's argument that the government lacks authority to collect criminal restitution also lacks merit. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a), (f); United States v. Mays, 430 F.3d 963, 965-67 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, contrary to Christensen's contentions, the record indicates that the government properly satisfied the procedural requirements for pursuing garnishment under § 3205 of the FDCPA.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. During the pendency of this appeal, the district court granted in part Christensen's petition for writ of error coram nobis, and lowered the amount of his restitution obligation. Christensen does not dispute the government's assertion that it has thus far collected approximately $383,620.24 from the garnishees and that its final collection will not exceed the amended restitution order, which sets Christensen's revised restitution obligation at $783,272.19.
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. 20-10355
Decided: April 22, 2021
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)