Background
Lenny Paul Haskins owed $537,282.80 in restitution when he received a $73,668.61 inheritance during his incarceration. The money was deposited into the inmate trust account maintained for him by the Bureau of Prisons.
The government sought a turnover order directing that the account’s $73,855.89 balance be applied to the unpaid restitution, and the district court granted the motion. On appeal, counsel questioned the district court’s authority and its entry of the order without giving Haskins an opportunity to respond. Haskins separately argued that his participation in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program precluded the turnover and that applying his inheritance to restitution was unconstitutional.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not reversibly err by issuing the turnover order. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n), an incarcerated person who owes restitution and receives substantial resources from any source—including an inheritance—must apply those resources to the outstanding restitution obligation.
The court also rejected the asserted procedural and constitutional grounds for reversal. Citing Fifth Circuit authority, it noted that granting a turnover order without first permitting a response does not warrant reversal when the inmate cannot show that a response would have affected the outcome, particularly where the funds are subject to an ongoing lien and no restitution exemption applies. Haskins’s existing payments through the Bureau of Prisons did not shield the inheritance from collection.
The court further explained that the Anders framework did not apply because Haskins had no constitutional right to counsel in this post-direct-appeal proceeding. It nevertheless considered the arguments submitted by counsel and by Haskins before affirming.
Key Takeaways
- Section 3664(n) requires an incarcerated restitution debtor to apply a substantial inheritance toward restitution still owed.
- Participation in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program does not prevent the government from pursuing newly acquired funds through a turnover order.
- A lack of opportunity to respond before entry of a turnover order does not establish reversible error absent a showing that a response could have changed the result.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a restitution payment schedule does not necessarily limit the government’s ability to collect substantial funds that an incarcerated defendant later receives. Inheritances deposited into inmate trust accounts may be reached and applied to outstanding victim restitution under § 3664(n).
The unpublished opinion also underscores that Anders review is unavailable in proceedings beyond a defendant’s first appeal when there is no independently established constitutional right to counsel.