IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 14-10751 FILED June 12, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce CONSOLIDATED WITH 14-10800 Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee v. GHASSAN ELASHI,

Defendant v. MAJIDA SALEM,

Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Before BARKSDALE, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Appellant Majida Salem appeals the district court’s final order of garnishment that orders her to pay the balance of the $3,500 special assessment that was part of her husband’s criminal conviction and sentence. Because the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act authorizes the Government to garnish Salem’s salary, we must AFFIRM. Case: 14-10751 Document: 00513077345 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2015

No. 14-10751 FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In 2009, Appellant Majida Salem’s husband, Ghassan Elashi, was convicted of 35 counts of violating various federal laws. The district court sentenced Elashi to 65 years in prison and ordered him to pay a $3,500 special assessment. As of October 28, 2013, Elashi had paid only $587.12 of the assessment, resulting in a $2,912.88 balance. Because Elashi’s remaining debt was set to expire on May 27, 2014, see 18 U.S.C. § 3013(c), the Government filed an Application for Writ of Garnishment on November 5, 2013. The district court issued a writ of garnishment to Brighter Horizons Academy, Salem’s employer, instructing the school to withhold 25% of Salem’s take-home pay. See 15 U.S.C. § 1673. Brighter Horizons was served, and it filed an answer stating that Salem’s monthly take-home pay is $3,362.12. On December 3, 2013, Salem moved to quash the writ of garnishment, arguing that Texas state law exempted her wages from garnishment. The district court, however, denied Salem’s motion, holding that state-law exemptions do not apply to the enforcement of federal criminal debt. The district court entered a final order of garnishment on July 2, 2014. Salem timely appealed. 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW This court reviews a garnishment order for abuse of discretion. United States v. Clayton, 613F.3d592, 595 (5th Cir. 2010). A district court necessarily abuses its discretion if its conclusion is based on an erroneous determination

1Salem filed two notices of appeal. She first appealed from the district court’s denial of her motion to quash. She appealed again from the district court’s final order of garnishment. This court consolidated the two appeals. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Branham, 690 F.3d 633, 634–35 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (holding that only a final order of garnishment, but not an order denying a motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment, is a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291). 2 Case: 14-10751 Document: 00513077345 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2015

No. 14-10751 of the law. Id. The controlling issue here is one of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law that the court reviews de novo. Id. DISCUSSION The United States is enforcing the federal mandatory special assessment that