Whether the USA's garnishment of $80,000 from Glenn Ambort was timely and proper under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 3613

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(A), the USA may utilize all provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3613 for the enforcement of an order of restitution. The USA’s garnishment of $80,000 was identified as . restitution in Waldner’s criminal case within the 20 . years allowed by 18 U.S.C. § 3613 for collection by the USA. The USA’s garnishment was timely. The garnishment was not identified as restitution on Roger’s criminal case until 2017. , “Recoupment claims are generally not barred by a statute of limitations so long as the main action is timely.” Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 264 (1993). . The following questions are presented for review: 1. Would a GVR Order for a hearing below reveal that no court below gave Glenn a hearing on his recoupment defense? 2. Would a GVR-ordered hearing below likely result in recovery of the $80,000 without using much of this Court’s limited docket? i Il. ALL PROCEEDINGS BELOW 1. In re H W Motor Express Co., 343 B.R. 208 (N.D. Iowa 2006). 2. United States v. Waldner, 564 F.Supp.2d 911 (N.D. Iowa 2008). 3. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No: 20-3705, United States v. Roger Waldner and Glenn Ambort (February 24, 2021). i .