505 F. App'x 838
11th Cir.2013Background
- Pickett was convicted in 1996 of Medicare, Medicaid, and mail fraud and ordered to pay $214,474.66 in restitution to state and federal agencies.
- The restitution was a component of his sentence and remained payable after supervised release; he challenged it repeatedly over the years.
- A 1997 judgment included restitution; Pickett later faced supervision revocation, bankruptcy discharge, and renewed attempts to avoid payment.
- In 2007-2011 the DOJ sent TOP offset notices to collect the full restitution, and offsets began in October 2011.
- The district court denied injunctive relief, holding the challenges barred/meritless; Pickett appealed, pro se.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, addressing law-of-the-case, enforceability, and offset legality issues under TOP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case effect on validity challenge | Pickett: restitution judgment void; validity contested. | Defendant: law of the case bars new challenges to validity; judgment affirmed previously. | Law-of-the-case bars challenge to validity. |
| Enforceability of restitution against TOP | Pickett: offset invalid or time-barred; statute limits apply. | Government may use TOP; lien survives 20 years; offset consistent with law. | Restitution remains enforceable; TOP permissible. |
| Other defenses to collection (laches, double jeopardy, bankruptcy discharge) | Pickett: laches, double jeopardy, and discharge void collection. | Laches not applicable to United States; revocation not a separate punishment; bankruptcy not dischargeable for restitution. | defenses fail; offsets allowed; no double jeopardy violation; not discharged by bankruptcy. |
| Offset to state-victim debt via TOP | Pickett: Florida debt cannot be offset using TOP. | DOJ may use TOP to enforce federal restitution even if victim is a state agency. | DOJ may use TOP to enforce a federal restitution judgment. |
| Offset for federal taxes paid | Pickett seeks offset for taxes paid. | No entitlement shown to such relief; district court did not abuse its discretion. | No relief awarded; injunction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556 (11th Cir. 1997) (law-of-the-case doctrine binding unless exceptions apply)
- United States v. Woods, 127 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 1997) (restitution and punishment considerations in parole/supervised release context)
- United States v. Fuentes, 107 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997) (enforceability of restitution as a lien under 18 U.S.C. § 3613)
- United States v. Delgado, 321 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2003) (laches and enforcement considerations in federal contexts)
- United States v. $121,100 in U.S. Currency, 999 F.2d 1503 (11th Cir. 1993) (court can affirm on any basis supported by record)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) (double jeopardy principles in sentencing modifications)