United States v. Sidney Joseph
In United States v. Sidney Joseph, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-30005 (5th Cir. May 20, 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order directing the Federal Bureau of Prisons to transfer funds from Joseph’s inmate account to cover his restitution obligations.
Joseph was sentenced to 462 months in prison, and he was ordered to pay restitution of $24,025.00 to two banks he had robbed. At sentencing, the court ordered that Joseph’s restitution payments should begin while he was incarcerated.
By the time of this appeal, Joseph had paid $2,772.03 toward that obligation, but he had $18,217.83 in his prison inmate trust account when the Government moved for an order directing the BOP to transfer the money to the court for payment of Joseph’s restitution obligation. The district court granted that motion, ordering transfer of $17,817.83 under 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c), 18 U.S.C. § 3556, and the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.
Under § 3613(c), the United States is authorized to enforce a monetary judgment under federal or state law, and here there was no dispute that it had a lien on Joseph’s property based on the restitution obligation. On appeal, however, Joseph raised three arguments, each of which was rejected by the Fifth Circuit.
Issue 1: Had the restitution lien expired? No.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b), a restitution obligation “shall terminate on the date that is the later of 20 years from the entry of judgment or 20 years after the release from imprisonment of the person ordered to pay restitution.” And § 3613(c) states that “[t]he lien arises on the entry of judgment and continues for 20 years or until the liability is satisfied, remitted, set aside, or is terminated under subsection (b).”
Joseph argues that those two provisions should be interpreted separately such that § 3613(c) terminates a lien after 20 years. The Fifth Circuit rejected that interpretation, concluding that Joseph’s “construction would result in a nonsensical outcome because it would make no sense that if the person who owes restitution (debtor) dies, their estate would be held responsible for the unpaid balance of the restitution in accordance with the lien until they receive a written release, but if the debtor lives, he is released from the restitution requirement after 20 years.”
Issue 2: Was the district court’s transfer order not issued “in accordance with” any federal or state law as required by § 3613(a)? No.
Under § 3613, the “United States may enforce a judgment imposing a fine in accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil judgment under Federal law or State law.” But it “also authorizes enforcement ‘[n]otwithstanding any other [f]ederal law[.]’” (quoting § 3163(a). And the court has “previously found this provision to override any conflicting sections or federal laws.” Regardless, the MVRA authorizes enforcement “by all other available and reasonable means,” which could reasonably include a court order.
Issue 3: Joseph forfeited his third argument (even though the Government did not argue forfeiture) by raising it for the first time on appeal. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021). (“A party forfeits an argument by failing to raise it in the first instance in the district court—thus raising it for the first time on appeal—or by failing to adequately brief the argument on appeal.”).