United States of America v. Preston Ellard Forthun, also known as Preston E. Forthun

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3030
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Preston Ellard Forthun, also known as Preston E. Forthun
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: May 22, 2025
Filed: May 28, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
On the government’s application, the district court1 issued a writ of
garnishment, under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), to collect
1The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

a restitution debt owed by Preston Forthun pursuant to an amended sentencing
judgment in his criminal case. Forthun appeals after the district court denied his
motion to dismiss the garnishment and to compel discovery, and issued a garnishment
order.
We conclude the district court did not err in denying Forthun’s motion to
dismiss without a hearing, as he did not raise any issues requiring a hearing. See
United States v. Santee Sioux Tribe, 254 F.3d 728, 731-32 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard
of review; federal government enforces all non-tax related civil debts under FDCPA);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) (judgment debtor may move to quash order by
requesting hearing; issues at hearing limited to validity of any claim of exemption by
judgment debtor; government’s compliance with statutory requirements for issuance
of post-judgment remedy granted; and if judgment is by default, validity of claim for
debt merged in judgment and any good cause for setting aside judgment); United
States v. Behrens, 656 Fed. Appx. 789, 790 (8th Cir. 2016) (unpublished per curiam)
(denial of hearing was not basis for reversal where objections failed as matter of law).
As to Forthun’s challenge to the garnishment based on issues related to the total
amount of restitution due, we note the government’s application recited the amount
of restitution set forth in the amended sentencing judgment, which Forthun did not
dispute was due in full. See United States v. Williams, 898 F.3d 1052, 1055 (10th
Cir. 2018) (garnishment was proper where criminal judgment specified restitution
was due in full on date of judgment). We further conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Forthun’s motion to compel discovery. See Marlow
v. City of Claredon, 78 F.4th 410, 415-16 (8th Cir. 2023) (this court will reverse
rulings on discovery requests only where gross abuse of discretion results in
fundamental unfairness).
Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Forthun’s pending motions for
sanctions and a stay.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --