United States v. Corey Kidd, 23 F.4th 781

Defendant Corey Kidd was sentenced to 155 months and ordered to pay $61,952.61 in restitution; the judgment required $25 quarterly (or 10% of quarterly earnings) during incarceration.
Kidd enrolled in the BOP Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), agreed to the $25 quarterly payments, and made timely payments for years, reducing the balance only slightly.
The government discovered approximately $5,989.37 in Kidd’s inmate trust account and moved under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3664(k) and 3664(n) to have $5,500 turned over toward restitution.
Kidd contested the motion, claiming the funds were accumulated prison wages/savings held in a prerelease account and requested a hearing; the government argued § 3664(n)’s “any source” language authorized payment.
The district court granted the government’s motion relying solely on § 3664(n) without a hearing. The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding § 3664(n) does not apply to accumulated prison wages and directing further proceedings to determine the funds’ source and whether § 3664(k) applies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) applies to accumulated prison wages in an inmate trust account	Kidd: § 3664(n) targets windfalls or outside sudden injections; gradual prison wages saved over time are not "substantial resources" under the statute	Gov: The statute says "any source," so receipt of resources during incarceration (including wages) must be applied to restitution	Eighth Cir.: § 3664(n) does not apply to accumulated prison wages; statute’s context and policy considerations counsel against covering prison wages
Whether the district court should have held a hearing to identify the funds’ source	Kidd: Requested a hearing to prove funds were earned wages/savings and to present IFRP records and alternatives	Gov: Argued statute is clear and immediate application was authorized	Eighth Cir.: Vacated and remanded; district court should examine the record (hold hearing if needed) to determine sources before ordering turnover
Whether accumulated prison wages could nonetheless trigger § 3664(k) as a material change in economic circumstances	Kidd: Gradual savings may not be a material change; IFRP payment schedule should control	Gov: $5,500 is a material change permitting adjustment or immediate payment under § 3664(k)	Eighth Cir.: Recognized accumulation can, in some circumstances, be a material change; remanded for district court to consider § 3664(k) discretion

United States v. Hughes, 914 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 2019) (construed § 3664(n) as addressing windfalls, not gradual prison wage accumulation)
United States v. Poff, [citation="781 F. App'x 593"] (9th Cir. 2019) (agreed that accumulated prison wages do not qualify under § 3664(n))
Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993) (statutory interpretation requires reading words in context)
Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005) (broad words like "any" must be read in statutory context)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (importance of precise statutory context)
Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018) (broad statutory purpose does not override textual differences among restitution provisions)
Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303 (1961) (discussing noscitur a sociis and avoiding unintended breadth)