US v. Scott Wilson, No. 12-7813 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7813 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SCOTT D. WILSON, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Assistant Appellee. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Harry United States Attorney, Baltimore, Mason Gruber, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. direct appeal. Cir. 2011). We affirmed his sentence on United States v. Wilson, 452 F. App x 418 (4th 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. We affirm. Wilson appeals the district court s orders. 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). to Because the gold was neither contraband nor subject 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). that the district court Contrary to Wilson s assertion 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 dispense with oral we affirm argument the district because the court s facts orders. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
