USA v. Majeed et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDOLPH HADLEY,
Defendant,
and
DELTA COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION,
Garnishee.
Case No. 21-20060-JAR-4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Randolph Hadley’s Exemption Claim
and Hearing Request (Doc. 830) regarding a Writ of Garnishment issued to Delta Community
Credit Union.1 Defendant claims that the property identified in the writ is exempt under 18
U.S.C. § 3613(a) and asserts that it is inconsistent with this Court’s November 5, 2025
Memorandum and Order on restitution. Defendant also requests a hearing on the matter. The
Government responded,2 and the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons stated below, the
Court denies Defendant’s objections to the writ of garnishment and denies his request for
hearing.
1 Doc. 819.
2 Doc. 839.
Case 2:21-cr-20060-JAR Document 849 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 7

2
I. Background
Defendant Randolph Hadley was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit forced
labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1589. The Court denied his post-trial motions and
sentenced him to the statutory maximum sentence of five years in custody.3 This Court issued a
46-page Amended Memorandum and Order on November 5, 2025, addressing Defendants’ many
objections and arguments relating to the Government’s request for a discretionary award of
restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (“VWPA”).4 After considering these
arguments, the Court ordered as follows: “[J]oint and several restitution is ordered against
Defendants Majeed, Rassoull, Hadley, Jenkins, Kinard, and Greenwell in the amount of
$1,312,687 under 18 U.S.C. § 3663 . . . . Restitution is due immediately and payments shall be
satisfied in accordance with the payment schedule set forth above.”5
In accordance with this directive, the Court amended Hadley’s Judgment to include
restitution, which is indicated on a standard checkbox form.6 On the Schedule of Payments
portion of Hadley’s form, the Court marked the box for “A,” “Lump sum payment of $100,000
within 6 months of the date of the judgment,” with the “balance due . . . in accordance with (may
be combined with ☐ C, ☒ D, ☐ E, or ☐ F below).”7 The Court also marked the boxes for “B,”
“Payment to begin immediately,” and “D,” “Payment of not less than 10% of the funds deposited
each month into the inmate’s trust fund account and monthly installments of not less than 5% of
the defendant’s monthly gross household income over a period of 1 years, to commence 30 days
3 Docs. 586, 662.
4 Doc. 741.
5 Id. at 46.
6 Doc. 746.
7 Id. at 7.
Case 2:21-cr-20060-JAR Document 849 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 7

3
after release from imprisonment to a term of supervision.”8 The box for “F” was checked to
reflect that special instructions applied because the restitution amount was joint and several with
five of the co-defendants.9 Prior to these options, the Judgment states:
Criminal monetary penalties are due immediately. Having
assessed the defendant’s ability to pay, payment of the total
criminal monetary penalties is due as follows, but this schedule in
no way abrogates or modifies the government’s ability to use any
lawful means at any time to satisfy any remaining criminal
monetary penalty balance, even if the defendant is in full
compliance with the payment schedule . . . .10
As the Court recently ruled on a motion to clarify by Hadley’s Co-Defendant Etenia Kinard, the
language of the Court’s Memorandum and Order is clear that restitution is due immediately, with
a back-up schedule of minimum payments if the balance cannot be immediately paid.11
The Government applied for several writs of continuing garnishment in this matter to
enforce the restitution award. One was for Delta Community Credit Union, where Hadley has
savings and checking accounts. The writ was issued on December 15, 2025, and Hadley was
properly served with notice and instructions for claiming an exemption or objecting to the
answer. Hadley is currently represented by counsel, but on December 29, 2025, he submitted
pro se this exemption claim and hearing request. He checked the boxes on the form for the
following exemptions: wearing apparel and school books; fuel, provisions, furniture, and
personal effects that do not exceed $11,710.00 in value; and books and tools of a trade, business,
or profession that do not exceed $5,860.00 in value. Hadley also checked the boxes on page two
for: “The Government failed to comply with all statutory requirements for the issuance of the
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Doc. 833 at 1.
Case 2:21-cr-20060-JAR Document 849 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Writ of Garnishment based on the following: The government’s seizure of my assets are contrary
to the restitution order issued by Judge Julie A. Robinson on November 5, 2025;” and “I request
a hearing on the above issue(s).”12
On January 13, 2026, Garnishee Delta Community Credit Union filed an Answer to the
Writ of Garnishment.13 It states that Hadley has an ownership interest in one savings and one
checking account held by the credit union.
I. Discussion
Defendant’s pro se filing asserts that his property held by Delta Community Credit
Union: (1) is exempt from taking; and (2) that garnishment against this property is inconsistent
with the Court’s November 5, 2025 Order. Defendant’s objections and request for hearing are
without merit.
Enforcement remedies for criminal restitution are found under the Federal Debt
Collection Procedure Act (“FDCPA”).14 Where a criminal judgment imposes a fine, the United
States may enforce the judgment in the same manner as enforcing a civil judgment.15 All
provisions available to the United States for the enforcement of a fine are also available for the
enforcement of an order of restitution,16 including seeking a writ of garnishment.17
Exemptions from execution against assets of a defendant are set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3613(a), which provides that the only property exempt from garnishment is property the
12 Doc. 830 at 4.
13 Doc. 843.
14 28 U.S.C. § 3001, et seq.
15 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a).
16 See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(f).
17 28 U.S.C. § 3205(a) (“A court may issue a writ of garnishment against property . . . in which the debtor
has a substantial nonexempt interest and which is in the possession, custody, or control of a person other than the
debtor, in order to satisfy the judgment against the debtor.”).
Case 2:21-cr-20060-JAR Document 849 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 7

5
government cannot seize to satisfy the payment of federal income taxes, as enumerated in 26
U.S.C. § 6334(a)(1)–(8), (10), and (12).18 This list of exemptions is exclusive.19 A defendant
objecting to the garnishment bears the burden of showing he is entitled to relief.20
In this case, Defendant contends that his property held at Delta Community Credit Union
is exempt from garnishment under 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(1)–(3), which states:
(a) . . . There shall be exempt from levy—
(1) Wearing apparel and school books.—Such items
of wearing apparel and such school books as are
necessary for the debtor or for members of his
family;
(2) Fuel, provision, furniture, and personal
effects.—So much of the fuel, provisions, furniture,
and personal effects in the taxpayer’s household,
and of the arms for personal use, livestock, and
poultry of the taxpayer, as does not exceed
$11,710.00 in value; [and]
(3) Books and tools of a trade, business, or
profession.—So many of the books, and tools
necessary for the trade, business, or profession of
the taxpayer as do not exceed the aggregate $5,860
in value.21
None of these exemptions apply to Hadley’s savings or checking account. As the
Government notes, the writ does not seek to garnish wearing apparel, school books, fuel,
provisions, furniture, personal effects, or books and tools of a trade, business, or profession.
Instead, the writ seeks Defendant’s interest in funds held in credit union accounts. Hadley fails
18 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a).
19 26 U.S.C. § 6334(c); Drye v. United States, 528 U.S. 49, 56 (1999).
20 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5).
21 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(1)–(3); see also 26 U.S.C. § 1, note (Revenue Procedure 2024-40 § 2.50).
Case 2:21-cr-20060-JAR Document 849 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 7

6
to identify, and the Court does not find, that the exemptions in § 6334(a)(1)–(3) apply to his
checking and savings account at Delta Community Credit Union.22
Defendant’s argument that the writ of garnishment violates the Court’s November 5,
2025 Order is also without merit. First, Hadley makes no attempt to explain how the writ
violates the Court’s Order. Thus, he fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that he is entitled
to relief. Second, to the extent he argues that the payment plan referenced in the Court’s
November 5, 2025 Order excuses him from garnishment, he is incorrect. “[A] court-ordered
payment plan does not preclude the government from pursuing other avenues to collect the
restitution.”23 If there was any doubt in this case, the Court confirmed in its January 7, 2026
Order that restitution is due immediately, with a back-up schedule of minimum payments if the
balance cannot be immediately paid. Thus, Defendant’s objections to the writ of garnishment are
denied.
Finally, the right to a hearing as set forth in the Instructions to Debtor,24 is found at 28
U.S.C. § 3202(d), which imposes significant limitations on the issues a court will consider at
such a hearing, specifically: (1) to the probable validity of any claim of exemption by the
judgment debtor; (2) to compliance with any statutory requirement for the issuance of the post-
judgment remedy granted; and (3) to certain situations where the judgment was entered by
default.25 “Courts routinely deny a request for ‘hearing where the debtor did not object based on
22 See, e.g., United States v. Holcomb, No. 08-20003-JWL, 2012 WL 5306257, at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 26,
2012) (finding that inheritance that is “entirely monetary . . . is not exempt from garnishment under § 6334(a)(1–3));
United States v. Daniel, No. 07-50082-DT, 2007 WL 2178324, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 27, 2008) (finding that writs
directed to bank would be monetary in nature and would not affect the defendant’s ownership rights in the property
listed in § 6334(a)(2)).
23 Holcomb, 2012 WL 5306257, at *3 (quoting United States v. Cooper, No. 02-40069-SAC, 2006 WL
3512936, at *3 (D. Kan. Nov. 1, 2006)).
24 Doc. 819-1.
25 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d).
Case 2:21-cr-20060-JAR Document 849 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 7

7
one of the issues specified in [section 3202], where the objection is plainly without merit, or
where the objection is simply a matter of statutory interpretation.’”26
Defendant does not possess a right to a hearing under § 3202(d). As already explained,
his exemption claims are not valid, he has not raised any issue regarding statutory requirements
for issuance of the garnishment, and judgment was not entered against him by default. Thus,
Defendant’s request for a hearing is denied.27
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant Randolph
Hadley’s Exemption Claim and Hearing Request (Doc. 830) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26 United States v. Greene, No. 15CR133-1, 2016 WL 3526054, at *4 (M.D.N.C. June 3, 2016) (alteration
in original) (quoting United States v. Page, No. 13CV119, 2013 WL 2945070, at *4 (N.D. W. Va. June 14, 2013)).
27 See id. at *5 (collecting cases).
Case 2:21-cr-20060-JAR Document 849 Filed 01/27/26 Page 7 of 7