United States v. Phung, 688 F. App'x 589

Phung was criminally convicted in 2009 for dispensing controlled substances without legitimate medical purpose, health care fraud, and altering records; he received a 109‑month sentence and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
The government sued Phung under the False Claims Act for submitting fraudulent Medicaid claims; on August 17, 2011, the district court granted summary judgment for the government and entered a civil judgment for $125,800.48.
Phung did not appeal the 2011 civil judgment and his post‑judgment motions for relief were denied; he later filed pro se grievances leading to the district judge’s recusal and administrative review of that recusal decision.
After Phung’s prison release and a later sentence reduction (which Phung did appeal), the government began collection efforts on the 2011 civil judgment.
Phung moved to suspend collection while his sentence‑reduction appeal and the recusal administrative review were pending; the district court denied the motion on November 7, 2016, and Phung appealed that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may review Phung’s challenge to the 2011 summary judgment	Phung’s appeal papers attack the original summary judgment	Government notes appeal of 2011 order is untimely	Appeal of 2011 summary judgment is untimely; court lacks jurisdiction to review it
Whether the denial of the motion to suspend collection was appealable and preserved	Phung appealed the November 7, 2016 order denying suspension; argues collection should be stayed due to pending appeals/reviews	Government defended continued collection during pendency of other proceedings	Notice of appeal timely only as to 2016 denial; but Phung failed to present arguments on that order and therefore waived his claims
Whether pending sentence‑reduction appeal affects collection of the civil judgment	Phung asserted that his sentence‑reduction appeal could affect collection	Government argued the sentence appeal is unrelated to civil collection	Court held the sentence‑reduction appeal is irrelevant to government’s collection efforts; suspension not warranted
Whether administrative review of judge’s recusal affects collection	Phung argued recusal review might impact enforcement	Government maintained recusal review is unrelated to monetary collection	Court held the recusal administrative review is irrelevant to collection; suspension not warranted

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (jurisdictional nature of timely notice of appeal)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (liberal construction of pro se briefs)
Kabba v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1239 (waiver from failure to present argument on appeal)
United States v. Sorensen, 801 F.3d 1217 (waiver where appellant cites no pertinent authority)
United States v. Phung, [citation="384 F. App'x 787"] (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming Phung’s criminal convictions)