USA v. Flowers

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARNOLD WESLEY FLOWERS, II,
Defendant. Case No. 3:16-cr-00035-SLG
ORDER
Before the Court is the United States’ Motion to Reconsider (Docket 272) to which
Mr. Flowers filed a response (Docket 273). The motion was referred to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Scott Oravec. 	At Docket 284, Magistrate Judge Oravec issued his
Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion be denied. The
government filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Docket 286).
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute
provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 	A court is to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2 	But as to those topics on
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2 Id.
Case 3:16-cr-00035-SLG Document 287 Filed 07/25/17 Page 1 of 3

3:16-cr-00035-SLG, U.S. v. Flowers
Order re Motion to Reconsider
Page 2 of 3
which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)]
requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties
themselves accept as correct.”3
The magistrate judge recommended that the court deny the motion to reconsider
as to the $10,000 of funds seized from Mr. Flowers’ residence that were not sought for
criminal forfeiture. 	The government had sought for those funds to be either give to the
Criminal Justice Act panel as compensation for the criminal defense that Mr. Flowers
received during the course of this litigation, or applied toward a $10,000 fine that the
Government asks the Court to impose.
The magistrate judge found that while the court has the discretion to grant the
government’s request, he recommended that this court not do so. The magistrate judge
noted the $4,500 in monthly costs that the Flowers family incurred, including expenses
for four children. 	In light of those obligations, the magistrate judge found “Mr. Flowers
outstanding debts and responsibilities to his family render the $10,000 not presently
available” for either a fine or CJA payment.4
The government’s objection to the report reargues many of the same points made
to the magistrate judge. It maintains “[t]he thought that the $10,000 at issue should be
available to [Mr. Flowers} when he gets out of prison is counter intuitive.”5
3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard,
when neither party objects to those findings.”).
4 Docket 284 at 7.
5 Docket 286 at 2.
Case 3:16-cr-00035-SLG Document 287 Filed 07/25/17 Page 2 of 3

3:16-cr-00035-SLG, U.S. v. Flowers
Order re Motion to Reconsider
Page 3 of 3
On de novo review, the district court agrees with and adopts the analysis of the
magistrate judge. 	The court finds that the best interests of the Flowers children will be
served if Mr. Flowers has these funds available to provide for the children’s financial
needs during their father’s incarceration.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2017 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:16-cr-00035-SLG Document 287 Filed 07/25/17 Page 3 of 3