United States v. Jeffrey Thomas Gola, 698 F. App'x 602

Jeffrey Gola pleaded guilty to using a computer to distribute child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and agreed in his plea to pay victims’ mental-health restitution.
The district court entered an order of restitution and, in an amended judgment, set $11,000 due immediately and required $100 monthly minimum payments upon supervised release; Gola did not appeal.
In 2016 the government warned Gola that unpaid restitution could be referred to the Treasury Offset Program to withhold federal payments; it also noted prison accounts generally are not garnished absent voluntary participation in the inmate financial responsibility program (IFRP).
In January 2017 Gola moved pro se to stay collection, claiming indigency and requesting nominal periodic payments under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2),(f)(3), and saying he intended to collaterally challenge restitution as not proximately caused by him (via § 2255).
The district court denied the stay and a reconsideration motion; the court reasoned the government could not garnish Gola’s inmate account unless he voluntarily participated in the IFRP.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Gola’s collateral and belated challenges were improper and that he failed to show the required change in circumstances to adjust the payment schedule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gola may stay collection while collaterally challenging restitution	Gola sought a stay and said he would raise a § 2255 challenge to restitution’s validity	Government argued challenges to restitution must be raised on direct appeal, not by delaying collection	Court held Gola cannot relitigate restitution or payment plan via a collateral proceeding and may not stay collection on that basis
Whether payment schedule should be adjusted for indigency	Gola claimed indigency and asked for nominal payments under § 3664(f)	Government relied on the existing judgment and the lack of a showing of changed circumstances	Court held Gola waived these arguments by not appealing and failed to allege a material change in economic circumstances under § 3664(k)
Whether prison officials can compel IFRP participation or garnish inmate account	Gola alleged coercion and violation of liberty/property interests in inmate account	Government noted inmate-account garnishment requires voluntary participation in IFRP and collection may use Treasury offsets for other federal payments	Court held claims about IFRP coercion must be raised in habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2241) against prison officials in the district of confinement; denial of stay affirmed

Arnaiz v. Warden, 594 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (collateral attack cannot substitute for direct appeal to challenge restitution)
Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2003) (failure to raise restitution/payment-schedule arguments on appeal results in waiver absent exceptional circumstances)