United States’ Response to Gail Terrell’s Motion to Quash Subpoena - Page 3
ARGUMENTSI.The United States’ Subpoena Is Authorized Under The MVRA And FDCPA.
The United States has the authority under federal law to issue a civil subpoena inMcGill’s criminal case to enforce the restitution order.
See United States v. Parlin
, No.3:03-CR-162-D, 2010 WL 1903991, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. May 10, 2010) (unpublished) (
Pl.’s App. Tab B) (Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan denied motion to quash United States’subpoena issued in criminal case to enforce order of restitution);
United States v. Miller
, No. 4:03-CR-170-A, (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2005) (unpublished) (
Pl.’s App. Tab C)(motion to quash United States’ subpoena issued in criminal case to enforce order of restitution denied). The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. §§3663A-3664, authorizes the United States to enforce victim restitution orders in the samemanner that it recovers fines and by all other available means.
18 U.S.C. §3664(m)(1)(A);
United States v. Phillips
, 303 F.3d 548, 551 (5th Cir. 2002). The UnitedStates is further authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a) to collect criminal fines, and thusrestitution, “in accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of acivil judgment under Federal law or State law.” 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a);
, 303 F.3dat 551. The FDCPA provides the procedures for enforcement of a civil judgment under federal law.
28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3308;
, 303 F.3d at 551. Sections 3004 and3015 of the FDCPA expressly permit the United States to take discovery of a debtor’sfinancial condition in the manner in which discovery is authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the issuance of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena.
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1423 Filed 07/08/10 Page 3 of 10 PageID 10670