Case 2:25-mc-50217-LVP ECF No. 15, PageID.86 Filed 04/15/25 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`EDUARDO ABELLANA,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`________________________________/
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 25-mc-50217
`Honorable Linda V. Parker
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR
`HEARING ON REQUEST FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT AND TO
`TRANSFER ACTION
`
`On May 22, 2024, a jury found Defendant Eduardo Abellana guilty of one
`
`count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and one count of conspiracy to
`
`defraud the United States and receive kickbacks. See Verdict Form, United States
`
`v. Abellana, Case No. 20-cr-20144 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2024), ECF No. 116. On
`
`December 10, 2024, this Court sentenced Defendant to one-day time served and
`
`three years of supervised release. See J., id. (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2024), ECF No.
`
`155. The Court further ordered Defendant to pay $2,267,232.80 in restitution and
`
`a $200.00 assessment. Id.
`
`On February 27, 2025, the United States filed an application for writ of
`
`continuing garnishment. (ECF No. 1.) Requests for garnishment have been served
`
`on Ally Bank and the New York Life Insurance Company (“New York Life”) for
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`EDUARDO ABELLANA,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`________________________________/
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 25-mc-50217
`Honorable Linda V. Parker
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR
`HEARING ON REQUEST FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT AND TO
`TRANSFER ACTION
`
`On May 22, 2024, a jury found Defendant Eduardo Abellana guilty of one
`
`count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and one count of conspiracy to
`
`defraud the United States and receive kickbacks. See Verdict Form, United States
`
`v. Abellana, Case No. 20-cr-20144 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2024), ECF No. 116. On
`
`December 10, 2024, this Court sentenced Defendant to one-day time served and
`
`three years of supervised release. See J., id. (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2024), ECF No.
`
`155. The Court further ordered Defendant to pay $2,267,232.80 in restitution and
`
`a $200.00 assessment. Id.
`
`On February 27, 2025, the United States filed an application for writ of
`
`continuing garnishment. (ECF No. 1.) Requests for garnishment have been served
`
`on Ally Bank and the New York Life Insurance Company (“New York Life”) for
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:25-mc-50217-LVP ECF No. 15, PageID.87 Filed 04/15/25 Page 2 of 5
`
`monies owed or owed in the future to Defendant. (Id.; ECF No. 9.) Defendant
`
`filed requests for a hearing on the garnishments and to transfer the action to a
`
`Nevada court, as he now lives in Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) The United
`
`States filed a response. (ECF No. 12.) Because Defendant raises no valid
`
`objections to the garnishments, his request for a hearing and any objection to the
`
`garnishments are denied. For the same reason, there is no reason to transfer this
`
`matter to another jurisdiction.
`
`Applicable Law & Analysis
`
`The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A-
`
`3664, requires sentencing courts to order criminal defendants to pay restitution to
`
`their victims. The MVRA permits the United States to enforce a restitution order
`
`“by all other available and reasonable means,” id. § 3664(m)(1)(A), including “in
`
`accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil
`
`judgment under Federal law or State law,” id. § 3613(a). 28 U.S.C. § 3205(a)
`
`provides the United States with authority to enforce restitution orders through
`
`garnishments. The United States may garnish all property except that which is
`
`specifically exempt from a levy. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613; 26 U.S.C. § 6334; United
`
`States v. Nash, 175 F.3d 440, 443 (6th Cir. 1999) (“The provisions of 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3613(a) state that the United States may enforce a judgment imposing a fine,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:25-mc-50217-LVP ECF No. 15, PageID.88 Filed 04/15/25 Page 3 of 5
`
`restitution, or assessment against the property of the person fined, with the
`
`exception of those exemptions found in 26 U.S.C. § 6334.”).
`
`A judgment debtor can object to a garnishment proceeding pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 3202(d). Within twenty days of receiving the notice described in section
`
`3202(b), the judgment debtor may request a hearing to quash the garnishment.
`
`However, the garnishment hearing is limited to (1) valid claim exemptions, (2)
`
`post-judgment statutory compliance for issuing the garnishment, and (3) challenges
`
`to judgments entered by default. Id.
`
`While the statutory language requires the court to “hold a hearing . . . as
`
`soon as practicable,” courts have denied requests for hearings “where the debtor
`
`did not object based on one of the issues specified in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d), where
`
`the objection is plainly without merit, or where the objection was simply a matter
`
`of statutory interpretation.” United States v. Miller, 588 F. Supp. 2d 789, 797
`
`(W.D. Mich. 2008) (collecting cases and denying a hearing where the defendant
`
`failed to identify any valid objections to the writ of garnishment). If the objecting
`
`party does not raise a statutorily permissible issue in the request for a garnishment
`
`hearing, the request should be denied. See United States v. Mahar, 42 F.3d 1389
`
`(6th Cir. 1994) (finding that the debtor’s claim of financial hardship was not a
`
`permissible subject for a § 3202(d) hearing); United States v. Lawrence, 538 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 1188, 1194 (D.S.D. 2008) (“If Congress wanted to allow for the equities
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:25-mc-50217-LVP ECF No. 15, PageID.89 Filed 04/15/25 Page 4 of 5
`
`present in each case to be delved into at a § 3202(d) hearing, then it most assuredly
`
`would have said so and expanded the scope of the statute accordingly.”) Under
`
`§ 3205, the objecting party bears the burden of proving the grounds for his or her
`
`objection. 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5).
`
`Defendant fails to articulate any statutory basis for relief from the
`
`garnishments and restitution order. In his first request for a hearing, he simply lists
`
`“financial reason.” (ECF No. 6.) His second request includes an exemption form
`
`on which he checked three categories of exemptions he believes prevents the
`
`garnishments: (1) “Wearing apparel and schoolbooks”; (2) “Fuel, provisions,
`
`furniture, and personal effects”; and (3) “Minimum exemption for wages, salary,
`
`and other income.” (ECF No. 7 at PageID. 41-42.) The first two categories are not
`
`the subject of the garnishment directed at Ally Bank or New York Life.1 The third
`
`is not property exempt under the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1) (exempting
`
`certain categories of property which are exempt under 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a) but not
`
`including subsection 9).
`
`
`
`Accordingly,
`
`
`1 New York Life possesses a rollover IRA with an approximate value of
`$88,354.21, as of April 4, 2025. (ECF No. 10.) Ally Bank possesses a spending
`account and a money market savings account with a combined value of $52,828.51
`as of April 7, 2025. (ECF No. 11.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:25-mc-50217-LVP ECF No. 15, PageID.90 Filed 04/15/25 Page 5 of 5
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s requests for a hearing and to transfer
`
`this action to Nevada (ECF Nos. 6, 7) are DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
`
`Dated: April 15, 2025
`
`s/ Linda V. Parker
`LINDA V. PARKER
`U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
`record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 15, 2025, by electronic and/or U.S.
`First Class mail.
`
`s/Aaron Flanigan
`Case Manager
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
