United States v. 2020-02-10 | 18-10349 | USA V. HODA SAMUEL | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HODA SAMUEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10349

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00223-JAM-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Hoda Samuel appeals pro se from the district court’s minute order denying
her “Motion to Enforce Terms of Judgment.” We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Upon her conviction, Samuel was ordered to pay a $3,100 special

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-10349
assessment, a $20,000 fine, and $3,029,412.64 in restitution. Samuel argues that,
because the judgment orders her to pay at least $25 per quarter against these
amounts through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), it prevents
the government from collecting payments through any other means while she is
incarcerated. The judgment’s plain language does not support Samuel’s assertion.
Rather, read as a whole, the judgment contemplates payments outside of the IFRP
during Samuel’s period of incarceration. This reading is consistent with the
purpose of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) and the government’s
statutory authority to collect from all of an inmate’s available resources to satisfy
monetary criminal penalties. See Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 612-13
(2010) (MVRA intended to provide crime victims receive full restitution in a
timely manner); United States v. Berger, 574 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2009)
(describing statutory procedures for collection of fines and restitution). Thus, the
district court properly denied Samuel’s motion.
We decline to consider Samuel’s additional arguments because they are
raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Brugnara, 856 F.3d 1198,
1211 (9th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.