United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO QUASH ALL
SUBPOENAS AND FOR A COURT-ORDERED REPAYMENT SCHEDULE
Dennis Saylor, IV, United States District Judge
Christopher Uhl owes restitution to the Internal Revenue
Service and a fine to the U.S. government. In order to
collect on this debt, the United States has served subpoenas
on several financial institutions to determine whether they
are holding any assets for Uhl.
Uhl has an attorney of record in this case who has not
withdrawn, he has filed two pro se motions, one to
quash the subpoenas and one requesting a court-ordered
repayment schedule. For the following reasons, those motions
will be denied.
convicted of six counts of tax evasion and sentenced to 33
months of imprisonment and 2 years of supervised release.
(Docket No. 96, 122). He was also ordered to pay a $7, 500
fine and $360, 904 in restitution to the Internal Revenue
Service. (Docket No. 122). Uhl served his time and his
supervised release terminated on May 10, 2014. (Docket No.
131). However, a large portion of the restitution remains
first time the Court heard from Uhl after his supervised
release was in July 2015, when he requested some
documentation of his progress towards his restitution in
connection with his request to be reinstated to the
Connecticut bar. (Docket No. 132). It appears that that led
to a disagreement about his payment obligations, as Uhl filed
a motion for a written, court-ordered repayment schedule in
January 2016. (Docket No. 133). A hearing on that motion was
set for October, but continued to December. (Docket Nos. 135,
137, 142). The defendant did not attend the hearing, and the
following day the Court entered an order denying the motion,
stating that “[b]ecause the term of supervised release
has concluded, the Court is without authority to modify its
terms.” (Docket No. 143). Uhl requested reconsideration
of that ruling, but it was denied. (Docket Nos. 166, 176).
in November 2016, the government filed a motion for a
financial examination of Uhl in order to obtain information
about his financial circumstances so that the parties could
establish an appropriate monthly payment plan. (Docket No.
139). In the months leading up to the examination, Uhl had to
be compelled to produce various financial documents that he
was reluctant to turn over. (See Docket Nos. 160, 164, 177).
The financial examination was held before a magistrate judge
on March 2, 2017. (Docket Nos. 179, 180). At various times
from 2016-2017, the government has sought and received
permission to garnish Uhl's wages. (Docket Nos. 140, 145,
158, 185, 191, 193).
initial matter, Local Rule 83.5.5(a) does not allow parties
who are represented by counsel to appear pro se. The
motions may be denied on that basis alone. See United
States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1285 (1st Cir. 1993).
Motion to Quash Subpoenas
motion to quash the subpoenas will be denied. First, the
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, together with the Federal
Debt Collection Practices Act, authorize the Attorney
General, when enforcing restitution awards, to use any
process available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
in an action on a claim for a debt. 18 U.S.C. §§
3612, 3613; 28 U.S.C. § 3015(a); see United States
v. Witham, 648 F.3d 40, 47 (1st Cir. 2011). Rule 69
allows post-judgment discovery of financial information.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(2) (“In aid of the judgment or
execution, the judgment creditor . . . may obtain discovery
from any person-including the judgment debtor-as provided in
these rules or by the procedure of the state where the court
defendant has not provided a sufficient reason to quash the
subpoenas. He argues that the “new subpoenas issued are
redundant and overburden some [sic]” and that they
“create an undue burden as all information requested
has been provided multiple times.” (Def. Mot. to Quash
at 1). But the subpoenas do not burden defendant at all as
they do not request any information from him. The motion to
quash subpoenas will therefore be denied.
Motion for a Court-Ordered Repayment
motion for a court-ordered repayment schedule will be denied
because the Court has already ruled on this matter. Defendant
filed a nearly identical motion on January 7, 2016. (Docket
No. 133). The Court denied that motion, stating that
“[b]ecause the term of supervised release has
concluded, the Court is without authority to modify its
terms.” (Docket No. 143). The Court also denied
defendant's motion for ...