United States v. Vespa Beverages, et al., No. 10-2133 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of aiding and abetting and the falsification of a document. See No. 10-117 issued this date in defendant's criminal prosecution. With defendant's direct appeal pending, the government learned that he would be paid to settle unrelated civil litigation. The government moved the district court for, inter alia, a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining defendant and his attorney or agents from spending, dispersing, investing or otherwise placing the settlement amount beyond the reach of the United States while the issue was resolved. The court held that a sentencing court had jurisdiction to enforce its restitution order and could use the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), when necessary and appropriate, to prevent the restitution debtor from frustrating collection of the restitution debt. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining defendant and his agents from transferring liquid assets and in declining to dissolve the injunction until the amount to be applied to his restitution debt had been paid. As the court had vacated the restitution order in the criminal case, the payment order in this case was also vacated for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case. See No. 10-1117 issued this date in Yielding's criminal prosecution. District court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining Yielding and his agents from transferring settlement payments and in declining to dissolve the injunction until the amount to be applied to restitution had been paid; district court in the criminal proceedings had authority under the All Writs Act to issue an injunction to persons claiming an interest in the settlement; as the court has vacated the restitution order in the criminal case, the payment order in this case must also be vacated for further proceedings in light of the remand in the criminal case.
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.