35 F.4th 633
8th Cir.2022Background
- Jason Woodring pled guilty to destruction of an energy facility, use of fire to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm/ammunition by an unlawful user of a controlled substance; district court sentenced him to 180 months and ordered $4,840,953.45 restitution and a $400 special assessment.
- At sentencing the court announced a payment requirement of “50 percent per month of all funds available to him,” and defense (with no government objection) proposed clarifying that to “50 percent of income earned by him while he’s incarcerated.”
- The written judgment contained inconsistent language: the Schedule of Payments required “50 percent per month of all funds that are available to him,” while the Additional Terms required “50 percent per month of earned income available to him,” without defining “earned income.”
- The government moved to withdraw $1,000.87 from Woodring’s inmate trust account, asserting the account balance ($2,001.75) reflected a COVID‑19 stimulus payment; Woodring objected that the funds were not “earned income” under the Internal Revenue Code definition.
- The district court granted the government’s motion without factual findings about the source or composition of the account funds; Woodring appealed the turnover order.
- The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court failed to make necessary findings about the account composition and whether restitution could properly be extracted under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) (or another provision).
Issues
| Issue | Woodring's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may order turnover of inmate trust funds without first finding the source and composition of the funds | The funds were not “earned income” (citing the IRC definition) and the court needed to find the source before seizing money for restitution | The account included a COVID‑19 stimulus payment and the government is entitled to 50% of the balance for restitution | Vacated and remanded: court must determine exact composition and source of the account before ordering turnover |
| Whether the funds could be treated as “substantial resources” under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) or otherwise subject to immediate collection (e.g., § 3664(k)) | Stimulus payment is not “earned income” and may not be a § 3664(n) substantial resource absent factual findings | Argued § 3664(n) supports turnover; alternatively raised § 3664(k) on appeal | Remand required to determine if § 3664(n) applies; § 3664(k) cannot justify the order here because victims were not notified as § 3664(k) requires |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kidd, 23 F.4th 781 (8th Cir. 2022) (record must show whether prison account includes “substantial resources” subject to § 3664(n))
- United States v. Hughes, 914 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 2019) (gradual accumulation of prison wages is not § 3664(n) "substantial resources")
- United States v. Poff, 781 Fed. Appx. 593 (9th Cir. 2019) (similar holding on prison wages and § 3664(n))
- United States v. Howard, 989 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2021) (vacatur where record prevented meaningful appellate review)
- United States v. Raifsnider, 846 Fed. Appx. 423 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review: abuse of discretion)