United States of America v. Gary S. Christensen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GARY S. CHRISTENSEN,
Defendant-Appellant,
ALLIANCE BANK OF ARIZONA, a
division of Western Alliance Bank; et al.,
Real-parties-in-interest.
No. 20-10355
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-08164-DGC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Gary S. Christensen appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-10355
the government’s motions for garnishment disposition under the Federal Debt
Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(7), to satisfy
Christensen’s restitution obligation, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a), 3663A. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court correctly found that Christensen’s objections to the
garnishment writs were untimely filed, and Christensen had provided no good
cause or excusable neglect for the delay. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C.
§ 3205(c)(5). Therefore, the district court did not err by denying the objections
and granting the government’s motions for disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(7)
(“After the garnishee files an answer and if no hearing is requested within the
required time period, the court shall promptly enter an order directing the garnishee
as to the disposition of the judgment debtor’s nonexempt interest in such
property.”).
In any event, Christensen’s objections to the garnishment, which he renews
on appeal, also fail on the merits. Christensen has not shown that the district court
erred in declining to stay the garnishment proceedings pending his challenge to the
underlying restitution order. He has also failed to support his argument that the
district court’s partial grant of coram nobis relief affects the instant garnishment

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-10355
disposition order.1 Christensen’s argument that the government lacks authority to
collect criminal restitution also lacks merit. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613(a), (f); United
States v. Mays, 430 F.3d 963, 965-67 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, contrary to
Christensen’s contentions, the record indicates that the government properly
satisfied the procedural requirements for pursuing garnishment under § 3205 of the
FDCPA.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
1 During the pendency of this appeal, the district court granted in part Christensen’s
petition for writ of error coram nobis, and lowered the amount of his restitution
obligation. Christensen does not dispute the government’s assertion that it has thus
far collected approximately $383,620.24 from the garnishees and that its final
collection will not exceed the amended restitution order, which sets Christensen’s
revised restitution obligation at $783,272.19.

-- 3 of 3 --