Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. OATES, 5:12-cr-283-KOB-TMP. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama Number: infdco20130610813 Visitors: 21
Filed: May 23, 2013
Latest Update: May 23, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION KARON OWEN BOWDRE, District Judge. On March 5, 2013, the Clerk issued notice to the defendant of the issuance of the writ of execution and advised her of her right to request a hearing regarding any exemptions to the execution claimed by the defendant. (Doc. 36). The defendant filed her request for a hearing on March 13, 2013, claiming exemptions under paragraphs 6 and 9 of the notice. (Doc. 43). On March 20, 2013, the magistrate judge entered his report and recommendation
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KARON OWEN BOWDRE, District Judge.

On March 5, 2013, the Clerk issued notice to the defendant of the issuance of the writ of execution and advised her of her right to request a hearing regarding any exemptions to the execution claimed by the defendant. (Doc. 36). The defendant filed her request for a hearing on March 13, 2013, claiming exemptions under paragraphs 6 and 9 of the notice. (Doc. 43). On March 20, 2013, the magistrate judge entered his report and recommendation (doc. 49), recommending that the court deny the motion to stay the writ of execution pending appeal and that the court deny the defendant's claims of exemption. The defendant filed no objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

After careful consideration of the entire record in this case, including the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge that the court deny the request to stay the writ of execution and that the court deny the defendant's claims of exemption. The court finds that the defendant has failed to show any entitlement to any exemptions of the funds in the IBM 401(k) Plus Plan owned by her and that such funds are subject to the writ of execution for collection of the restitution ordered in this case. Moreover, the court finds that the defendant should not receive credit toward her restitution amount for money deducted by the Social Security Administration to pay the defendant's child-support arrearage.

The court further finds that the defendant's motion for stay of execution of the restitution order pending appeal is due to be denied because she failed to make a "strong showing" of a likelihood of success on the merits.

The court will enter a separate Order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion.

DONE and ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer