United States v. GallionUnited States v. Gallion
* * * * * * * * * *
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant/Judgment Debtor William Joseph Gallion‘s Claim for Exemption and Request for a Hearing (Doc. # 1519). The United States filed a Response (Doc. # 1520), and Gallion having filed an untimely Reply (Doc. # 1526), the matter is ripe for the Court‘s review. For the following reasons, Gallion‘s Claim for Exemption and Request for Hearing is denied.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2009, a jury found Gallion guilty of one count of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in violation of
On December 13, 2024, Gallion was a recipient of an Executive Grant of Clemency by former President Joe Biden, and his sentence expired on December 22, 2024. (Doc. # 1488). On February 12, 2025, this Court issued an Order notifying Gallion that fifteen percent of his Social Security benefits may be offset to satisfy his restitution debt. (Doc. # 1497). On May 20, 2026, this Court issued a Writ of Continuing Garnishment to PNC Bank, NA. (Doc. # 1516). On June 8, 2026, PNC Bank, NA (“the Garnishee“) filed an Answer to the Writ of Garnishment, indicating that it is holding the property of Gallion in the form of deposit accounts with a combined total value of $18,680.29. (Doc. # 1517 at 3).
On June 29, 2026, Gallion filed an Exemption Form and Request for Hearing (“Objections“) in response to the Garnishee‘s Answer (Doc. # 1519). Gallion asserts that his deposit accounts at PNC Bank are exempt as “certain annuity and pension payments” and “minimum exemptions for wages, salary and other income.” (Doc. # 1519 at 2). On July 1, 2026, the United States filed a Response (Doc. # 1520). Gallion then filed an untimely Reply (Doc. # 1526). Based off the arguments contained in Gallion‘s Reply, on July 29, 2026, the Court ordered the United States to file a sur-reply to Gallion‘s arguments within ten (10) days. (Doc. # 1528). In accordance with this Court‘s Order,
III. ANALYSIS
The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MRVA“) makes restitution mandatory for certain crimes including “any offense committed by fraud or deceit[.]”
Here, Gallion asserts that the deposit accounts held by the Garnishee are exempt for two different reasons: (1) his Social Security retirement benefits are exempt as certain annuity and pension payments; and (2) his Social Security benefits are exempt under the
A. Claims for Exemption
1. Certain Annuity and Pension Payments
On the exemption form, Gallion first checked the exemption for “[c]ertain annuity and pension payments.” (Id.). Underneath, Gallion writes that his Social Security benefits, which he receives only after the Bureau of Fiscal Service withholds fifteen percent (See Doc. # 1497), total $3000 a month. (Id.). In its Response, the United States argues that pursuant to
Pursuant to
As a preliminary matter, the Court acknowledges that there is no Sixth Circuit precedent on whether the MVRA applies to Social Security benefits. However, district
Therefore, “[t]he text of Section 3613(a) makes clear that, in the event of a conflict where the SSA‘s anti-alienation provision would otherwise protect a defendant‘s Social Security benefits from collection, Section 3613(a) empowers the government to garnish those benefits under the MVRA.” Haq, 2024 WL 4231579, at *3. Accordingly, Gallion‘s Social Security benefits are not exempt from restitution collection.
Gallion, however, acknowledges this argument. (Doc. # 1526 at 2). In his Reply, Gallion states that despite the fact that
Gallion‘s Motion is not properly proven. Indeed, while Gallion states that an additional garnishment would “leave him without funds on which to live[,]” he has submitted no additional support or evidence at all. Id.; see also id. (denying a motion to modify under
Accordingly, because Gallion has not provided a valid claim of exemption, nor has he provided sufficient evidence for a modification under
2. Minimum Exemption for Wages, Salary, and Other Income
Gallion next checked the exemption for “wages, salary and other income.” (Doc. # 1519 at 2). Underneath, Gallion states that the “assets subject to the ex parte garnishment were derived from retained social security benefits.” (Id.). As this Court just concluded, Social Security benefits are not exempt from restitution collection—regardless of how Gallion attempts to classify them.
Moreover, Gallion‘s asserted exception for “wages, salary and other income” falls under
B. Request for a hearing
Gallion additionally requests a hearing before the Court. (Doc. # 1519 at 2). Pursuant to
As discussed above, both of Gallion‘s Objections were overruled because they were either plainly without merit or simply a matter of statutory interpretation. Accordingly, because Gallion‘s Objections are not viable, a hearing on the matter is unnecessary.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, Defendant Gallion‘s Claim for Exemption and Request for a Hearing (Doc. # 1519) is DENIED;
This 7th day of August, 2026.
Signed By:
David L. Bunning
Chief United States District Judge