David Armstrong v. Kristi Kaplon, 677 F. App'x 434

Armstrong appeals district court’s affirmance of bankruptcy court’s nondischargeability ruling for a criminal restitution order under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).
Supreme Court in Kelly v. Robinson held § 523(a)(7) preserves state-imposed restitution as part of criminal sentences, not dischargeable.
Ninth Circuit has followed Kelly in concluding criminal restitution payments are nondischargeable (e.g., Silverman).
Armstrong argues California’s dual mechanism (restitution and a separate restitution fine) could make the order dischargeable.
Court emphasizes state court restitution serves penological interests and falls within Kelly’s scope, regardless of California’s restitution-fine structure.
Opinion affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision that Armstrong’s restitution order is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 523(a)(7) bars discharge of Armstrong’s California restitution order.	Armstrong argues Kelly applies only to the restitution fine, not the order.	Kelly prohibits discharge of criminal restitution orders; state structure is immaterial.	Discharge not allowed; restitution order nondischargeable.

Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 1986) (restitution orders are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7))
In re Silverman, 616 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2010) (restitution payments are non-dischargeable)
In re Taggart, 249 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2001) (supreme holding that state criminal judgments should not be remitted)
In re Levy, 951 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1991) (Kelly held restitution in state proceedings not dischargeable)
In re Warfel, 268 B.R. 205 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001) (federalism supports Kelly’s interpretation of § 523(a)(7))