Ronald Myers was convicted in 2005 and ordered to pay over $40,000 in restitution. Although he completed his initial sentence in 2010, he was reincarcerated in 2013 and has remained in federal custody. During his incarceration, over $30,000 was deposited into his inmate trust account, primarily from family and friends, with a smaller portion coming from prison wages. As of 2022, Myers still owed over $35,000 in restitution. The government moved to turn over the remaining funds in his account, arguing that the accumulated deposits constituted 'substantial resources' under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The district court granted the motion, declining to hold an evidentiary hearing and ordering the Bureau of Prisons to transfer approximately $1,233 to the government.
The panel addressed three main arguments raised by Myers. First, regarding the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n), the court rejected the argument that the statute applies only to one-time, lump-sum windfalls from a single source. Relying on the Dictionary Act, which states that singular words include the plural, the court held that 'any source' encompasses multiple independent sources. Furthermore, the court interpreted the present tense 'receives' to cover resources that become substantial over time through accumulation, rather than requiring the funds to be substantial at the exact moment of each individual deposit. The court clarified that the statutory examples of 'inheritance, settlement, or other judgment' are illustrative of the statute's breadth, not limiting it to sudden windfalls. Second, the court found that the turnover order did not contravene the original restitution judgment. The judgment required payments to begin immediately and set a minimum floor of 25% of monthly earnings, but it did not cap the total amount payable. Section 3664(n) provides an independent, automatic mechanism for turning over newly acquired substantial resources. Third, the court determined there was no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. The district court relied on comprehensive Bureau of Prisons ledgers to calculate the turnover amount. The court noted that tracing every transaction over nine years was impractical and that the district court's method of assuming all 2022 prison wages remained in the account was a conservative approach that favored the inmate.
The decision expands the government's ability to enforce restitution orders against inmates by allowing the seizure of funds accumulated gradually from family and friends. It establishes that 'substantial resources' can be the result of aggregation over time, not just sudden windfalls. The ruling leaves open the question of whether prison wages themselves can be seized under this theory, though the government in this case disclaimed any intent to target wages. The decision creates a circuit split with other courts that have interpreted the statute more narrowly, potentially requiring future en banc consideration or Supreme Court review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download