United States v. Raymond P. Novak

441 F.3d 819 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond P. NOVAK, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-55838. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 16, 2006. Filed March 23, 2006. Debra Yang, United States Attorney, Leon W. Weidman, and Brent A. Whittlesey, Assistant United States Attorneys of Los Angeles, CA, for the appellant. Martin S. Bakst of Encino, CA, for the appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Consuelo B. Marshall, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-06706-CBM. Before ALFRED T. GOODWIN, BETTY B. FLETCHER, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge. 1 The United States appeals from the district court's order quashing its writ of garnishment of Raymond Novak's benefits under a pension plan subject to the Employment and Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The district court held that such a garnishment was prohibited by ERISA's anti-alienation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(1). We reverse and remand because we determine that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, in conjunction with 18…

The United States appeals from the district court’s order quashing its writ of garnishment of Raymond Novak’s benefits under a pension plan subject to the Employment and Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The district court held that such a garnishment was prohibited by ERISA’s anti-alienation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(1). We reverse and remand because we determine that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 3613 , constitutes a statutory exception to ERISA’s anti-alienation provision.

I

The criminal information filed against Novak alleged that between 1995 and 1999 he transported certain valuable telephone boards in interstate commerce knowing that the boards were stolen. His then-wife was employed by Nestle U.S.A., Inc. (“Nestle”). Novak’s wife would order the telephone boards for Nestle, then steal the boards and deliver them to Novak, who would sell them. Novak was also charged with failing to report the income he received from selling the stolen telephone boards on his 1997 federal income tax returns.

Novak pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to transport stolen goods in violation…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The majority holds that the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 3613 , constitutes a statutory exception to ERISA’s anti-alienation provision. However, Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365 , 110 S.Ct. 680 , 107 L.Ed.2d 782 (1990), as well as our decision in United States v. Jackson, 229 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir.2000), require Congress to issue a clear statement of its intent to abrogate ERISA. Neither the MVRA nor 18 U.S.C. § 3613 contains such directive.

Section 206(d) of ERISA provides that benefits under its pension plans “may not be assigned or alienated.” See 29 U.S.C. *826 § 1056 (d)(1). Guidry takes an uncompromising approach, finding no exceptions to ERISA’s anti-alienation provision without a clear directive from Congress. “If exceptions to this policy are to be made, it is for Congress to undertake that task.” Guidry, 493 U.S. at 366 , 110 S.Ct. 680 . Congress — not courts — determine the exceptions to the statutory bar.

In Jackson , we reversed a district court decision that ordered a defendant to pay immediate restitution out of the proceeds of his…