United States v. Ekong

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that \addressee's 'bare assertion of non-receipt' is insufficient to rebut the assumption\ arising from the mailbox rule
• holding that a criminal judgment specifying a restitution payment plant does not prevent the Government from requiring immediate payment by garnishment
• noting that even an “addressee’s ‘bare assertion of non-receipt’ is insufficient to rebut the assumption.”
• analyzing sworn statements and circumstantial evidence to determine the date on which the letter at issue was mailed
• rejecting debtor’s contention that installment plan prevented garnishment because nothing in criminal judgement was contrary to statutes allowing government to enforce victim restitution orders under FDCPA
• “A sworn statement is credible evidence of mailing for the purposes of the mailbox rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).