Ronald Myers challenged the seizure of $1,233.73 from his federal prison trust account, arguing the funds consisted of small periodic deposits from family and friends over time rather than the kind of sudden financial windfall covered by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n). Myers still owed over $35,000 in restitution from his 2005 conviction for counterfeiting and transporting stolen vehicles, while his trust account had received over $30,500 in deposits since 2013, mostly from family members.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson rejected Myers's argument that § 3664(n) covers only 'one-time, lump-sum windfalls,' holding instead that 'substantial resources from any source' includes accumulated deposits from multiple sources. 'The Dictionary Act tells us to assume words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things,' Nelson wrote, adding that the statute's reference to inheritances and settlements does not limit its scope since 'any' has 'an expansive meaning.'
The case arose after the government discovered activity in Myers's BOP-maintained trust account and sought turnover under the MVRA. The district court granted the motion in May 2023, concluding that substantial aggregated sums fall within § 3664(n)'s reach and exempting Myers's prison wages from seizure. Myers appealed, also challenging the court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on his account's composition.
The ruling deepened existing circuit splits over prison restitution enforcement, with Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown dissenting that § 3664(n) should apply only to resources substantial at receipt time. Four judges led by Circuit Judge Kim Wardlaw unsuccessfully sought en banc review, arguing the decision 'deprives inmates of the monies saved in their trust fund accounts to pay for necessities' and interferes with the Bureau of Prisons' financial responsibility program.