Opinion
CR-20-00557-PHX-JJT
02-21-2023
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Brent Edwin Justin, Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
Honorable John J. Tuchi United States District Judge
On July 1, 2021, the Court sentenced Defendant for Second Degree Murder-CIR, imposing as part of the sentence a restitution amount of $3,200, to be paid jointly and severally with his co-defendant to the Gila River Indian Community (“the Community”). (Doc. 57.) Pursuant to that Judgment and sentence, the government applied for a Writ of Garnishment as against any per capita distribution Defendant would receive from the Community until the restitution was paid. (Doc. 69.) In addition to payments made by Defendant and his co-defendant through the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, several payments have been made by the garnishee to date, and at present, $838.81 remains outstanding on the Judgment and Restitution Order.
In his Motion, Defendant noted a balance due on the restitution of $1,139.43, but Garnishee Gila River Indian Community made a subsequent payment, thus reducing that balance to $838.81.
Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Stop Garnishment (Doc. 82), in which he requests that the Court order the government to cease garnishing his per capita distribution from the Community's Per Capita Distribution program. But as the government points out in its Response (Doc. 83), Defendant agreed in his Plea Agreement that his per capita payments “shall be paid over to the Clerk of the Court and applied to [his] restitution obligation until the restitution to all victims is paid in full.” (Doc. 58 at 4.) In its Response, the government sets forth in detail the statutory and case law authorizing the restitution Order, the garnishment in furtherance of restitution, and the Plea Agreement provisions demonstrating Defendant's assent thereto. The Court will not repeat same here.
The garnishment is lawful and will continue until the remaining $838.81 in restitution ordered is paid, either by Defendant, his co-defendant, or the garnishment, which at the current rate will be sometime during the summer or fall of 2023.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion to Stop Garnishment (Doc. 82.)