By: Derek Hawkins//October 10, 2016//
7th Circuit court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Justin Wykoff
Case No.: 16-1307
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges
Focus: Garnishment – Restitution Exemption
Appellant has no legal argument to oppose garnishment to satisfy restitution
“In fact he has no legal leg to stand on. The federal criminal code requires that restitution be paid immediately unless the district court provides otherwise, 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1), which it did not. In United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 795 (7th Cir. 2008), we pointed out that at the start of incarceration “any existing assets should be seized promptly. If the restitution debt exceeds a felon’s wealth, then the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A, 3664, demands that this wealth be handed over immediately.” This is an important rule—for who knows what might hap‐ pen to Wykoff’s assets during his years of imprisonment. He or members of his family or for that matter the Indiana state pension fund might decide that there are better things to do with those not inconsiderable assets than give them to Bloomington.
Affirmed