United States v. Witham, 2011 WL 2206934

Witham pled guilty to multiple offenses and restitution was ordered to a private victim, Compaq (formerly DEC), totaling $800,000 plus interest.
Restitution payments were sporadic; Witham paid little during 2004–2009 and only one $100 payment after the end of supervision.
In 2009 the United States sought a writ of continuing garnishment under the FDCPA to garnish 25% of Witham's disposable earnings.
District court reduced garnishment to $200/month after hearings and a deposition on Witham's finances; later reconsideration kept $200/month pending further briefing.
The government argued MVRA authorizes FDCPA procedures to enforce all restitution orders; Witham argued pre-MVRA precedent limited FDCPA use to debt owed to the United States only.
District court concluded First Circuit precedent precluded FDCPA use for private-victim restitution; the government appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MVRA authorizes FDCPA procedures for private-victim restitution	Witham argued Bongiorno controls; FDCPA cannot reach private victims.	United States contends MVRA authors the use of FDCPA procedures for all restitution, including private victims.	MVRA authorizes FDCPA procedures to enforce all restitution orders, including private-victim restitution.

United States v. Bongiorno, 106 F.3d 1027 ((1st Cir. 1997)) (FDCPA not available for private-victim restitution under VWPA)
United States v. Rostoff, 164 F.3d 63 ((1st Cir. 1999)) (pre-MVRA restitution enforcement limitations)
United States v. Timilty, 148 F.3d 1 ((1st Cir. 1998)) (pre-MVRA enforcement mechanics for restitution)
United States v. Kollintzas, 501 F.3d 796 ((7th Cir. 2007)) (MVRA incorporation of FDCPA for restitution (cited by court))
United States v. Mays, 430 F.3d 963 ((9th Cir. 2005)) (MVRA allows FDCPA enforcement of restitution; private-victim issue discussed)
Phillips v. United States, 303 F.3d 548 ((5th Cir. 2002)) (FDCPA incorporated into MVRA restitution enforcement)