565 F. App'x 798
11th Cir.2014Background
- Rostan, a federal prisoner, was convicted and ordered to pay restitution; the district court later garnished Fidelity accounts to satisfy the restitution order plus accrued interest.
- The original restitution order in 2000 was $20,710.83 and payable immediately per minutes; the written judgment did not specify an interest schedule.
- In 2007 the judgment was amended to clarify payment terms, noting payments would be applied to principal before interest.
- In 2012 the government sought a writ of garnishment under 28 U.S.C. § 3205; Fidelity evidenced Rostan’s substantial assets.
- Rostan objected to garnishment on multiple grounds, but the district court granted the writ and Rostan appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that interest accrues by operation of law and garnishment adhered to the underlying restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether garnishment complied with the underlying restitution order | Rostan (Rostan) argues the order did not specify interest or payment schedules | Rostan's position is not supported by the order’s terms; district court followed default rules | Affirmed; garnishment complied with the restitution order |
| Whether interest is triggered automatically under 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(1) | Rostan contends no explicit interest provision in 2000/2007 orders | Interest is mandatory when restitution exceeds $2,500, regardless of explicit schedule | Affirmed; statutory interest applies automatically |
| Whether the 2007 amendment altered the original restitution terms | Rostan claims no substantive change to interest or payment | Amendment clarified clerical omissions; did not change payment schedule | Affirmed; amendment did not substantively alter terms |
| Whether the default immediate payment schedule is compatible with the statute | Rostan argues the order did not mandate immediate payment | Minutes show payable immediately; federal default rule requires immediate payment | Affirmed; default schedule applied |
| Whether the district court could modify accrued interest in 2012 | Rostan challenges district court’s failure to modify interest | Modification only allowed where defendant lacks ability to pay; Rostan had ability in 2012 | Affirmed; court lacked authority to modify mandatory interest in 2012 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2007) (garnishment upheld as consistent with valid restitution order)
- United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975 (11th Cir. 1990) (minutes control where discrepancy with oral sentence; default payment rules apply)