United States v. Ponce, No. 2:16-cr-00368-APG-PAL (D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT PONCE, JR
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
District of Alabama
Decided
Feb. 26, 2026
Majority
Andrew P. Gordon (C. J.) (unanimous Court)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. ROBERT PONCE,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 540272Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, D. Nevada.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffv.ROBERT PONCE, JR., DefendantCase No. 2:16-cr-00368-APG-PAL|Filed 02/26/2026[ECF Nos. 68, 69]Attorneys and Law FirmsDaniel J. Cowhig, Designation: USA, DOJ-United StatesAttorney's Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff.Randall J. Roske, Randall J. Roske, Law Office of, Las Vegas,NV, for Defendant.OrderANDREW P. GORDON CHIEF UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE*1 Robert Ponce owes restitution in connection withhis conviction. He moves for an order declaring that hisupcoming workers’ compensation settlement is exempt fromgarnishment and lien enforcement. ECF No. 68. He separatelymoves for an adjustment to his restitution payment scheduleand to avoid paying interest on the amount due. ECF No. 69.1Motion for exemption from garnishmentPonce argues that his expected workers’ compensationsettlement is exempt from execution under 26 U.S.C. §6334(a)(7), which exempts “[a]ny amount payable to anindividual as workmen's compensation.” The Governmentagrees it cannot and will not execute upon that settlementbefore Ponce receives it. ECF No. 74 at 3-4. But theGovernment suggests it will attempt to seize it after Ponceor his counsel receives it. Id. The Government relies on acase from the District of Alabama holding that workers’compensation funds that were deposited into a bank accountwere not exempt because they were no longer “payable”under the statute but had been “paid.” United States v. Coker,9 F. Supp. 3d 1300, 1302 (S.D. Ala. 2014) (“The plainmeaning of the word ‘payable’ is an amount ‘capable of beingpaid’ or ‘suitable to be paid’ or ‘an obligation to be paid at afuture time.’ ... Funds in a bank account are ‘no longer capableof being paid.’ ” (simplified, quoting Hughes v. IRS, 62 F.Supp. 2d 796, 800, 801 (E.D.N.Y. 1999))). That court andothers holding similarly rely on the statute's plain language.But that interpretation seems to read out of existence theworkers’ compensation exemption of § 6334(a)(7) becausethe recipient cannot use the funds until they are paid but thenit is subject to immediate execution. Because the parties havenot briefed this issue, I do not decide it now.For purposes of the present motion, the Government'sadmission that it will not execute on the workers’compensation settlement before Ponce receives it renders themotion moot. If Ponce or the Government wish to litigatewhether the funds will be or are subject to execution after theyare received, either one may file a new motion on that issue.Motion for elimination of interest and reduction ofpayment schedulePonce also moves for a reduction of his restitution paymentschedule and the elimination of accruing interest on theamount due. ECF No. 69. He claims he suffered a catastrophicwork injury in March 2024 and has been unable to worksince then. Id. at 2. He has been receiving Temporary TotalDisability payments. Ponce's motion included a Declarationabout his monthly expenses and income but did notinclude proof that the funds he is receiving are workers’compensation. ECF No. 69-2. Thus, the Government couldnot fully respond to the motion. He attached to his replyadditional documentation confirming the funds are from aworkers’ compensation settlement. ECF No. 77.*2 I have discretion to waive or limit the interest Ponceis required to pay if he “does not have the ability topay” it. 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(3). See also United States v.Spencer Tnd Dang, 492 Fed. App'x 730, 731 (9th Cir. 2012)(waiver of interest on unpaid restitution is discretionary anda district court can waive post-judgment interest if it findsthe defendant is unable to pay). As for authority to modifyhis restitution payment order, Ponce cites to 18 U.S.C. §3664(k). That statute allows for modification based on a“material change in the defendant's economic circumstancesthat might affect the defendant's ability to pay restitution.”See also United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1050(9th Cir. 2008) (§ 3664(k) allows courts to adjust restitutionamounts and schedules in response to particular changes, inthe interests of justice). The statute requires the Attorney
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. ROBERT PONCE,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2General to “certify to the court that the ... victims owedrestitution by the defendant have been notified of the changein circumstances.” Only then can the court adjust the paymentschedule.The Government seems to acknowledge it received notice ofPonce's changed circumstances as the Government requestedhe complete a financial disclosure. ECF No. 75 at 2. TheGovernment then requested that Ponce pay 10% of hisworkers’ compensation settlement towards restitution. Id.The Government does not state whether Ponce agreed but itstates Ponce has made monthly payments of $216.00 sinceAugust 2025. Id. The Government does not state whetherit notified victims as required under § 3664(k), and doesnot offer specific objections to Ponce's request for a reducedpayment schedule.Ponce may qualify for modification of his restitution andinterest requirements, but questions remain. For instance,Ponce contends he will soon undergo surgery. It is unclearwhether this will allow him to resume working and (ifso) when. His current workers’ compensation is labeledas “temporary” rather than “permanent,” so perhaps hecan resume working. Because he did not attach all of hisdocumentation to his motion, the Government was deprivedof the opportunity to respond in full. And the Government hasnot provided a sufficient explanation whether it complied with§ 3664(k) and why it objects to Ponce's motion. Thus, I amunable to resolve the motion at this time. I order supplementalbriefing on this motion.I THEREFORE ORDER that Ponce's motion to exemptworkers’ compensation settlement (ECF No. 68) is deniedwithout prejudice as moot.I FURTHER ORDER the parties to confer about Ponce'smotion to adjust his restitution payment schedule (ECF No.69). If the parties reach an agreement, they can submita stipulation that complies with Sections 3612(f)(3) and3664(k). If not, then the Government must file a supplementalresponse to the motion addressing my concerns discussedabove by March 12, 2026. Ponce may file a supplementalreply within 10 days of the Government's response.DATED this 26th day of February, 2026.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 540272Footnotes1Both of Ponce's motions and replies are filled with hallucinogenic citations to non-existent cases. To theextent Ponce has relied on artificial intelligence to write his papers, I caution him that it is his responsibilityto check his case citations to ensure they are accurate and say what he claims they do. The failure to do somay expose him to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access