Watson
United States v. Watson
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*456 MEMORANDUM **
Clinton Watson appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion to quash a writ of execution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Watson contends that the district court’s denial of his motion to quash violated his due process rights. We review the denial of a motion to quash for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1499 (9th Cir.1996).
Watson first contends that the property seized from his home cannot be used to satisfy the over $300,000 restitution ordered by the district court at Watson’s 1996 sentencing. We disagree.
Under the Victim Witness Protection Act (“VWPA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512-1515 and 3663-3664, an order of restitution can be enforced by the government “in the manner provided for the collection and payment of fines in subchapter B of chapter 229 of [Title 18].” 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (h)(1)(A). One of the provisions of subchapter B states that a fine is a hen “upon all property belonging to the person fined,” which “arises at the time of the entry of the judgment and continues until the liability is satisfied.” 18 U.S.C. § 3613 (a); accord United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 612 (9th…