United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
S. Zilly, United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant/Judgment Debtor
Terrill D. Beebe's pro se Request for Hearing,
docket no. 7, on the Writ of Continuing Garnishment issued
against Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, Inc., docket no. 3.
For the reasons stated herein, Mr. Beebe's request for
hearing is DENIED.
December 7, 1998, judgment was entered against Mr. Beebe in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington in Seattle. United States v. Terrill D.
Beebe, No. 2:98-CV-0527, docket no. 14. The judgment
awarded $7, 111, 699.92 in Criminal Restitution and a $100
Special Assessment. Id. As of December 6, 2017, a
balance of $7, 105, 263.84 remains. Writ of Continuing
Garnishment, docket no. 3.
December 8, 2017, the Government filed an Application for
Writ of Garnishment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3205(b)(1),
docket no. 1. The Court issued the Writ of Garnishment on
December 12, 2017, docket no 3, and that same day the
Government served on Mr. Beebe via first class mail a copy of
the application, writ, notice of garnishment, and
instructions to the judgment debtor. See docket nos.
4, 5. On January 16, 2018, Mr. Beebe filed a Request for
Hearing Form, docket no. 7, raising two contentions. First,
Mr. Beebe asserts that the property the Government is taking
is exempt. Mr. Beebe did not attach a Claim for Exemption
Form with his request for hearing or otherwise identify an
exemption that applies to this case. Second, Mr. Beebe
asserts that the Government failed to comply with the
statutory requirement for issuance of the writ because it
“has not proven that Vanguard's policies/procedures
mandate following the writ of garnishment[.]”
Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”),
28 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq., provides “the exclusive
civil procedures” for the United States to obtain
satisfaction of a judgment in a criminal proceeding that
imposes a fine assessment, penalty or restitution in favor of
the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 3001(a);
see also United States v. Duran, 701 F.3d 912, 915
(11th Cir. 2012). The FDCPA provides the United States with
several mechanisms to satisfy a judgment, one of which is a
writ of garnishment. 28 U.S.C. §§ 3202, 3205.
Pursuant to § 3205, a “court may issue a writ of
garnishment against property (including nonexempt disposable
earnings) in which the debtor has a substantial nonexempt
interest and which is in the possession, custody, or control
of a person other than the debtor, in order to satisfy the
judgment against the debtor.” 28 U.S.C. § 3205(a).
commencement of an action to recover property under the
FDCPA, the Government must prepare, and the clerk of court
must issue, notice to the judgment debtor following
substantially the form set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(b).
28 U.S.C. § 3202(b); see also United States v.
Tripodis, No. 1:01-cr-109-WSD, 2016 WL 5389142, at *2
(N.D.Ga. Sept. 27, 2016) (quoting United States v.
Peters, 783 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2015)). The
Government must then serve the judgment debtor with the
notice, the writ issued by the Court, and the
Government's application therefor, together with
instructions for objecting to the garnishee's answer and
for obtaining a hearing. 28 U.S.C. §§ 3202(c),
the judgment debtor has two opportunities to object and
obtain a hearing. The judgment debtor (1) may move to quash
the writ by requesting a hearing within 20 days of receiving
the notice required by § 3202(b), 28 U.S.C. §
3202(d); or (2) may object to the garnishee's answer and
request a hearing thereon within 20 days of receipt of the
garnishee's answer, 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5).
“Although the [FDCPA] states that the court
‘shall hold a hearing' at the debtor's request,
courts have denied a hearing where the debtor did not object
based on one of the issues specified in 28 U.S.C. §
3202(d), where the objection is plainly without merit, or
where the objection was simply a matter of statutory
interpretation.” United States v. Bruneau, No.
CR-09-8098-1- PCT-FJM (LOA), 2013 WL 6409518, at *3 (D. Ariz.
Oct. 23, 2013) (quoting United States v. Miller, 588
F.Supp.2d 789, 797 (W.D. Mich. 2008)); see also United
States v. Marchand, No. 2:15-mc-3719-MHT-SRW, 2017 WL
2857722, at *2 (M.D. Ala. May 4, 2017) (noting that a
“defendant is not entitled to a hearing where he fails
to show that the government did not comply with a statutory
requirement, or fails to present a colorable claimed
hearing is unnecessary for two reasons. First, a hearing is
not justified under § 3205(c)(5) because Mr. Beebe has
not objected to the garnishee's answer. Second, Mr. Beebe
has not identified any colorable claim for exemption that
might apply in this case and has otherwise failed to identify
any deficiency in the Government's compliance with the
statutory requirements. Tripodis, 2016 WL 5389142,
at *2. Defendant does not raise any of the issues enumerated
in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) sufficient to warrant a hearing.
Likewise, Defendant's statement that the Government
“has not proven that Vanguard's policies/procedures
mandate following the writ of garnishment” is without
merit and inconsistent with the information submitted by
Vanguard in answering the Writ of Continuing Garnishment.
See Form of Answer of the Garnishee, docket no. 6
(detailing the policies and procedures the Government must
follow to collect the proceeds from Defendant's Vanguard
account). Thus, Defendant's request for a hearing is
 A copy of the judgment is attached as
Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Dawn Fernandez in Support of
Application for a Writ of Garnishment, docket no. 1-1, ...