United States v. Trent Brewer
699 F. App'x 318
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brewer, a federal prisoner, challenges a district court turnover order directing BOP to turn over all but $200 of his inmate-trust account to satisfy a $5,000 restitution obligation.
- The turnover order stems from Brewer's 1997 convictions for mail fraud and fraudulent use of a social-security number.
- Brewer argues the order is improper because he claims he did not owe interest, never defaulted on IFRP, and the Government violated § 3664(k) notification.
- He also contends discovery difficulties while incarcerated justify appointment of counsel.
- The court reviews turnover orders for abuse of discretion; the panel affirms the district court’s decision.
- The court addresses interest on restitution, IFRP status, § 3664(n) inheritance application, § 3664(k) notification, and post-conviction counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the turnover order properly require interest on restitution? | Brewer argues no interest was owed under the original judgment. | Brewer must pay interest unless waived; amended judgments also require interest. | Interest required; no conflict between judgments; order proper. |
| Does non-default on IFRP preclude turnover? | IFRP compliance excuses further collection efforts. | IFRP participation does not foreclose other collection mechanisms; inheritance applies. | Participation does not preclude turnover; inheritance applied to restitution. |
| Is § 3664(k) notification required here? | Notification requirements applied to changes in ability to pay restitution. | Notification not required because § 3664(n) governs substantial resources received. | Notification under § 3664(k) is inapplicable; § 3664(n) governs. |
| Did Brewer prove credits for $1,800 paid while on supervised release? | Brewer should be credited for payments made during supervised release. | Brewer bears the burden to prove such payments; no proof presented. | Brewer failed to prove payments; no credit awarded. |
| Should counsel have been appointed under the CJA? | Ancillary post-conviction matters may require counsel. | Ancillary matters do not extend to post-conviction proceedings per precedent. | No appointment of counsel required for post-conviction turnover proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Messervey, 182 F. App’x 318 (5th Cir. 2006) (turnover order reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Santibanez v. Wier McMahon & Co., 105 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for turnover determinations)
- United States v. Diehl, 848 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2017) (IFRP does not preclude other collection mechanisms)
- United States v. Sheinbaum, 136 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 1998) (burden to prove payments made while on supervised release)
- United States v. Garcia, 689 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2012) (ancillary matters vs. post-conviction representation)
- United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (interpretation of ancillary representation and post-conviction matters)