United States v. Scott Wilson , 520 F. App'x 237 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTT D. WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00036-RDB-1)
Submitted: April 30, 2013 Decided: May 22, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott D. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Mason Gruber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scott D. Wilson pled guilty to arson, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (2006), and the district court ordered him to
pay $147,247.46 in restitution. We affirmed his sentence on
direct appeal. United States v. Wilson, 452 F. App’x 418 (4th
Cir. 2011). When Wilson paid only $175 toward his restitution
obligation, the Government moved to apply to the restitution
order proceeds from the sale of melted gold and other precious
metals seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives during the arson investigation. The district court
granted the Government’s motion and denied Wilson’s motion for
reconsideration. Wilson appeals the district court’s orders.
We affirm. See Crosby v. City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634, 643
n.10 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating that appellate court may “affirm
the district court on any ground that would support the judgment
in favor of the party prevailing below”).
Wilson claims on appeal that the district court erred
by failing to return the gold to him pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.
P. 41(g). Because the gold was neither contraband nor subject
to forfeiture, the Government had a legitimate interest in
retaining the property and applying the proceeds of the sale to
the outstanding restitution obligation. See United States v.
Kaczynski, 416 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 2005). Although Wilson
requested a hearing in his motion for reconsideration, he was
2
not entitled to a hearing at that stage of the proceedings
because the district court had not yet issued a notice of writ
of execution. See 28 U.S.C. § 3203 (2006); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 3202(d) (2006) (limiting issues at hearing, as pertinent here,
to determining validity of exemption and Government’s compliance
with statutory requirements). Contrary to Wilson’s assertion
that the district court altered the restitution order, the
district court’s order did not alter the amount or the payment
schedule of the restitution portion of the criminal judgment.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3