Opinion
21-30214
10-17-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORY D. JEFFREYS, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Argued and Submitted October 6, 2022 Portland, Oregon
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding D.C. Nos. 2:13-cr-00012-RMP-1, 2:13-cr-00012-RMP
Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, [**] District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Gregory D. Jeffreys ("Defendant") appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to reduce his monthly restitution payments. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. Reviewing the order for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Inouye, 821 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2016), as amended (May 31, 2016) (per curiam), we affirm.
As a preliminary matter, we are not aware of (and the parties have not cited) any authority that sets forth a standard for calculating a defendant's "household" income for restitution purposes. We apply the "economic unit" test from bankruptcy law because the parties agree it is the appropriate legal standard and the district court applied it. We explicitly do not decide whether it is the proper test.
Applying that standard, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Defendant and his unmarried partner, Shannon Stiltner, were members of the same household. Under the "economic unit" test applied by the district court, a "household" operates as an "economic unit" and includes individuals "the debtor financially supports and those who financially support the debtor." Order Den. Def.'s Mot. Reduce Monthly Restitution Repayments, United States v. Jeffreys, 2:13-CR-12-RMP-1 at 7 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2021) (quoting Johnson v. Zimmer, 686 F.3d 224, 237 (4th Cir. 2012)). Defendant and Stiltner are in a long-term romantic relationship. Though Defendant now states he is not engaged, he referred to Stiltner as his fiancee in his Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release in February 2021. The two live together, split the rent for their home, and operate a tree removal business together, which they advertise as "family owned." Notably, they operate that business from an office in their shared home, and it is the primary source of both their incomes.
While a couple's mere cohabitation and sharing of rent might not ordinarily be enough to conclude that they form a household, those facts in combination with Defendant and Stiltner's shared small business are sufficient in this case, under the totality of the circumstances. The district court's conclusion that they form an "economic unit" was not "illogical, implausible, or without support from any inferences that can be drawn from the record." Inouye, 821 F.3d at 1156.
Defendant's argument that the district court's $2,028.07 per month restitution obligation is beyond his financial ability rests on the assumption that he is a household of one. Because we conclude that he is not, this argument fails. Defendant offers no reason why he would be unable to make his monthly restitution payments when his and Stiltner's monthly net incomes are combined.
Defendant also argues that "in imputing Ms. Stiltner's earnings into Mr. Jeffreys' restitution payment calculation, the Government is effectively taxing the incomes twice. Ms. Stiltner has her own restitution order which requires her to pay no less than 10% of her net household income." But his and Stiltner's combined restitution obligation would simply be 30% of their net household income, and Defendant offers no argument why that would be an abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.