Criminal Docket for Case #: 6:21-cr-10073-EFM-1 — USA v. Capps (Dkt. 240-1, D. Kan.)

Summary

This filing reproduces the District of Kansas criminal docket in USA v. Capps, No. 6:21-cr-10073-EFM-1, before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. A jury on December 21, 2022 found Michael R. Capps guilty on Counts 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 and 12-15, which include false statements and bank fraud on PPP loans, a false statement to the SBA for an EIDL loan and wire fraud, and not guilty on Counts 3, 6 and 16-19. Capps was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release, with a $1200.00 special assessment and $318,647.21 restitution. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, and its mandate was entered on October 24, 2024. On December 31, 2024 Capps, pro se, appealed the court's November 5, 2024 Memorandum and Order (Doc. 229) on garnishment and restitution motions.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

CLOSED,APPEAL
U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Wichita)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:21−cr−10073−EFM−1

Case title: USA v. Capps Date Filed: 09/08/2021

Date Terminated: 05/12/2023

Assigned to: Chief District Judge
Eric F. Melgren
Appeals court case numbers:
23−3095 10CCA, 24−3083
10CCA

Defendant (1)
Michael R. Capps represented by Michael R. Capps
E−Filing & ECF Notifications 1611 S Utica Ave
TERMINATED: 05/12/2023 Pmb 328
Tulsa, OK 74107
316−371−3768
Email: cappsm@gmail.com
PRO SE
Bar Number:
Bar Status:

Jacob Rasch−Chabot
Office of Federal Public Defender − Denver
633 17th Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80202−3610
303−294−7002
Fax: 303−294−1192
Alternative Phone:
Cell Phone:
Email: Jacob.Rasch−Chabot@fd.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Public Defender or Community
Defender Appointment
Bar Number:
Bar Status: Government Atty

Kurt P. Kerns
Kerns Law Group
328 North Main
Wichita, KS 67202
316−265−5511
Fax: 316−265−4433

1
Alternative Phone:
Cell Phone:
Email: kurtpkerns@aol.com
TERMINATED: 05/30/2023
Designation: Retained
Bar Number: 15028
Bar Status: Active

Pending Counts Disposition
18:1014 False statement to a bank Sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years
for a PPP loan; 18:2 Aiding and supervised release on Cts. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
abetting (INDICTMENT 13, 14, & 15,each count running concurrently.
9/8/2021) $1200.00 special assessment fee. $318,647.21
(1) restitution
Sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years
18:1344(2) Bank fraud−PPP loan;
supervised release on Cts. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
18:2 Aiding and abetting
13, 14, & 15,each count running concurrently.
(INDICTMENT 9/8/2021)
$1200.00 special assessment fee. $318,647.21
(2)
restitution
18:1001(a) False statement to the Sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years
SBA for EIDL loan 18:2 Aiding supervised release on Cts. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
and abetting (INDICTMENT 13, 14, & 15,each count running concurrently.
9/8/2021) $1200.00 special assessment fee. $318,647.21
(4−5) restitution
Sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years
18:1343 Wire fraud, SBA; 18:2
supervised release on Cts. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
Aiding and abetting
13, 14, & 15,each count running concurrently.
(INDICTMENT 9/8/2021)
$1200.00 special assessment fee. $318,647.21
(7−8)
restitution
18:1343 Wire fraud, Kansas Sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years
Department of Commerce; 18:2 supervised release on Cts. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
Aiding and abetting 13, 14, & 15,each count running concurrently.
(INDICTMENT 9/8/2021) $1200.00 special assessment fee. $318,647.21
(9−10) restitution
Sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years
18:1957 Money laundering; 18:2
supervised release on Cts. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
Aiding and abetting
13, 14, & 15,each count running concurrently.
(INDICTMENT 9/8/2021)
$1200.00 special assessment fee. $318,647.21
(12−14)
restitution
Sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years
18:1957 Money laundering; 18:2
supervised release on Cts. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
Aiding and abetting
13, 14, & 15,each count running concurrently.
(INDICTMENT 9/8/2021)
$1200.00 special assessment fee. $318,647.21
(15)
restitution

Highest Offense Level
(Opening)

2
Felony

Terminated Counts Disposition
18:1001(a) False statement to the
SBA for EID loan 18:2 Aiding
and abetting (INDICTMENT Acquitted
9/8/2021)
(3)
18:1343 Wire fraud, SBA; 18:2
Aiding and abetting
Acquitted
(INDICTMENT 9/8/2021)
(6)
18:1343 Wire fraud, Sedgwick
County; 18:2 Aiding and abetting
Dismissed per the Order filed 12/13/2022.
(INDICTMENT 9/8/2021)
(11)
18:1957 Money laundering; 18:2
Aiding and abetting
Acquitted
(INDICTMENT 9/8/2021)
(16−19)

Highest Offense Level
(Terminated)
Felony

Complaints Disposition
None

Garnishee
Northwestern Mutual
Beneficiary & Title
720 E Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53202
TERMINATED: 09/07/2023

Garnishee
Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation
One Financial Way
Cincinnati, OH 45242
TERMINATED: 09/07/2023

Garnishee

3
Knopp Law Group, P.A.
310 W. Central Ave.
Wichita, KS 67202−1004

Garnishee
Coinbase, Inc.
c/o Corporation Service Company
1100 SW Wanamaker Rd., Ste. 201
Topeka, KS 66604

Garnishee
Security 1st Title, LLC
c/o David Armagost, Resident Agent
727 N. Waco
Suite 300
Wichita, KS 67203

Claimant
Charles Capps represented by Ted E. Knopp
Knopp Law Group, PA
The Quarters
310 W. Central Avenue, Suite 203
Wichita, KS 67202
316−265−5882
Fax: 316−265−5892
Alternative Phone: 316−644−6781
Cell Phone: 316−644−6781
Email: tknopp@knopplaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Bar Number: 11437
Bar Status: Active

Movant
Duaglo, LLC represented by Ted E. Knopp
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Bar Number: 11437
Bar Status: Active

4
Plaintiff
USA represented by Alan G. Metzger
Office of United States Attorney − Wichita
301 N. Main Street, Suite 1200
Wichita, KS 67202−4812
316−648 0531
Alternative Phone:
Cell Phone: 316−648−0531
Email: alan.metzger54@gmail.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Bar Number: 10143
Bar Status: Inactive

Annette Gurney
Office of United States Attorney − Wichita
301 N. Main Street, Suite 1200
Wichita, KS 67202−4812
316−269−6481
Fax: 316−269−6484
Alternative Phone:
Cell Phone: 316−250−8393
Email: annette.gurney@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Number: 11602
Bar Status: Active

Carrie Nicole Capwell
Office of United States Attorney − KCKS
500 State Avenue, Suite 360
Kansas City, KS 66101
913−551−6908
Alternative Phone: 913−551−6730
Cell Phone:
Email: carrie.capwell@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Bar Number: 78677
Bar Status: Active

Kathryn E. Sheedy
Office of United States Attorney − Topeka
290 US Courthouse
444 SE Quincy
Topeka, KS 66683−3592
785−295−2921
Alternative Phone:
Cell Phone:
Email: kathryn.sheedy@usdoj.gov

5
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Bar Number: 22867
Bar Status: Active

Molly M. Gordon
Office of United States Attorney − Wichita
301 N. Main Street, Suite 1200
Wichita, KS 67202−4812
316−269−6681
Fax: 316−269−6484
Alternative Phone:
Cell Phone:
Email: molly.gordon@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Bar Number: 23134
Bar Status: Active
Email All Attorneys
Email All Attorneys and Additional Recipients

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/08/2021 1 INDICTMENT as to Michael R. Capps (1) − counts 1−19. (sz) (Entered: 09/09/2021)
09/09/2021 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Michael R. Capps Initial Appearance set for 9/22/2021 at
01:30 PM by Zoom before Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer. (Pretrial form
provided to USMS)(sz) (Entered: 09/09/2021)
09/10/2021 2 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED on 9/10/2021 as to Michael R. Capps. (jk)
(Entered: 09/10/2021)
09/21/2021 3 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by attorney Kurt P. Kerns appearing for Michael R.
Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 09/21/2021)
09/21/2021 4 CONSENT TO APPEAR BY VIDEO OR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE for initial
appearance, arraignment and detention hearing as to Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt)
Modified on 9/22/2021 to add additional hearings. (mam) (Entered: 09/21/2021)
09/22/2021 5 (NOTE: Access to document is restricted pursuant to the courts privacy policy.)

NOTICE OF SURRENDERED PASSPORT as to Michael R. Capps. (Passport
Number 640927769, issued by USA.) (mam) (Entered: 09/22/2021)
09/22/2021 6 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer:
RULE 5/INITIAL APPEARANCE and ARRAIGNMENT as to Michael R. Capps
held on 9/22/2021 by ZOOM, Count(s) 1,2,3,4−5,6−8,9−10,11,12−19. Due Process
Protections Act advisement given. The Government adopted the recommendations of
Pretrial Services for release on conditions. Defendant provided verbal consent for
Zoom. Defendant's next appearance per the Scheduling Order of Judge Melgren.
(Tape #1:31−1:41) (sz) (Entered: 09/23/2021)

6
09/22/2021 7 ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE as to Michael R. Capps (1) −
$25,000 unsecured bond. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on
9/22/2021. (sz) (Entered: 09/24/2021)
09/23/2021 ORDER as to Michael R. Capps − Pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act, the
government is reminded of its obligations pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and its
progeny to disclose material that is favorable to the defendant and material to
defendants guilt or punishment. The failure to do so in a timely manner may include
dismissal of the indictment or information, dismissal of individual charges, exclusion
of government evidence or witnesses, or any other remedy that is just under the
circumstances. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 9/22/21. (This is a
TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ala)
(Entered: 09/23/2021)
09/24/2021 8 BOND POSTED as to Michael R. Capps. (sz) (Entered: 09/24/2021)
09/27/2021 9 PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER ENTERED: as to
Michael R. Capps. Status Conference set for 11/8/2021 at 10:15 AM in Wichita
Room 414 (EFM) before District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Jury Trial set for
11/23/2021 at 09:00 AM in Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM) before District Judge Eric
F. Melgren. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 9/27/2021. (cm) (Entered:
09/27/2021)
10/27/2021 10 MOTION to Continue Status Conference and Jury Trial by Michael R. Capps.
(Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 10/27/2021)
10/28/2021 11 ORDER TO CONTINUE granting 10 Motion to Continue. Speedy Trial time
excluded from 11/23/2021 until 1/25/2022 as to Michael R. Capps (1). Status
Conference set for 1/12/2022 at 08:45 AM in Wichita Room 414 (EFM) before
District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Jury Trial set for 1/25/2022 at 09:00 AM in Wichita
Courtroom 408 (EFM) before District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Signed by District
Judge Eric F. Melgren on 10/28/2021. (sz) (Entered: 10/28/2021)
01/07/2022 12 MOTION to Continue Status Conference and Jury Trial by Michael R. Capps.
(Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 01/07/2022)
01/10/2022 13 ORDER TO CONTINUE granting 12 Motion to Continue. Speedy Trial time
excluded from 1/12/2022 until 3/29/2022 as to Michael R. Capps (1). Status
Conference set for 3/14/2022 at 08:15 AM in Wichita Room 414 (EFM) before Chief
District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Jury Trial set for 3/29/2022 at 09:00 AM in Wichita
Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Signed by Chief
District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 1/10/2022. (sz) (Entered: 01/10/2022)
03/02/2022 14 JOINT MOTION to Continue Status Conference and Jury Trial by Michael R. Capps.
(Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 03/02/2022)
03/03/2022 15 ORDER TO CONTINUE granting 14 Motion to Continue. Speedy Trial time
excluded from 3/14/2022 until 6/7/2022 as to Michael R. Capps (1). Status
Conference set for 5/31/2022 at 10:00 AM in Wichita Room 414 (EFM) before Chief
District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Jury Trial set for 6/7/2022 at 09:00 AM in Wichita
Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Signed by Chief
District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 3/3/2022. (sz) (Entered: 03/03/2022)
03/03/2022 16 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Michael R. Capps. THIS IS AN
OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There

7
is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Due to a conflict on the court's
calendar, the Status Conference is reset for 6/1/2022 at 01:30 PM in Wichita Room
414 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. (cm) (Entered: 03/03/2022)
05/04/2022 17 MOTION to Continue Status Conference and Jury Trial by Michael R. Capps.
(Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 05/04/2022)
05/05/2022 18 ORDER TO CONTINUE granting 17 Motion to Continue. Speedy Trial Time
excluded from 6/1/2022 until 8/16/2022 as to Michael R. Capps (1). Status
Conference set for 8/5/2022 at 02:00 PM in Wichita Room 414 (EFM) before Chief
District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Jury Trial set for 8/16/2022 at 09:00 AM in Wichita
Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Signed by Chief
District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 5/5/2022. (sz) (Entered: 05/05/2022)
07/08/2022 19 MOTION to Continue Status Conference and Jury Trial by Michael R. Capps.
(Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 07/08/2022)
07/11/2022 20 MOTION to Continue Status Conference and Jury Trial by USA as to Michael R.
Capps. (Metzger, Alan) (Entered: 07/11/2022)
07/12/2022 21 ORDER TO CONTINUE granting 19 Motion to Continue as to Michael R. Capps
(1); finding as moot 20 Motion to Continue as to Michael R. Capps (1). Status
Conference set for 10/31/2022 at 09:45 AM in Wichita Room 414 (EFM) before
Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Jury Trial set for 11/15/2022 at 09:00 AM in
Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Signed
by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 7/12/2022. (sz) (Entered: 07/12/2022)
10/26/2022 22 MOTION in Limine by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment
1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4, # 5 Attachment 5, # 6
Attachment 6, # 7 Attachment 7, # 8 Attachment 8)(Metzger, Alan) (Entered:
10/26/2022)
10/26/2022 23 SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Motion in Limine by USA as to
Michael R. Capps. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Sealed Document, # 2 Proposed
Sealed Document Exhibit 10, # 3 Proposed Sealed Document Exhibit 15, # 4
Proposed Sealed Document Exhibit 23)(Metzger, Alan) (Entered: 10/26/2022)
10/27/2022 24 ORDER granting 23 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Counsel is directed
to file forthwith the requested document(s) with an event from the SEALED
DOCUMENTS category as to Michael R. Capps (1) Signed by Chief District Judge
Eric F. Melgren on 10/27/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf
document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 10/27/2022)
10/27/2022 25 SEALED MOTION in Limine by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 10, # 2 Exhibit 15, # 3 Exhibit 23)(Metzger, Alan) (Entered: 10/27/2022)
10/28/2022 26 AMENDED MOTION in Limine by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Attachments: # 1
Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4, # 5 Attachment
5, # 6 Attachment 6, # 7 Attachment 7, # 8 Attachment 8, # 9 Attachment
9)(Metzger, Alan) (Entered: 10/28/2022)
10/31/2022 27 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren:
STATUS CONFERENCE as to Michael R. Capps held on 10/31/2022. (This is a
TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm)
(Entered: 10/31/2022)

8
10/31/2022 28 MOTION to Continue Jury Trial by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Entered:
10/31/2022)
10/31/2022 29 ORDER granting 28 Motion to Continue Jury Trial. Speedy trial time excluded from
11/15/2022 until 12/20/2022 as to Michael R. Capps (1). Jury Trial is reset for
12/20/2022 at 09:00 AM in Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District
Judge Eric F. Melgren. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on
10/31/2022. (mam) (Entered: 10/31/2022)
10/31/2022 30 ORDER as to Michael R. Capps re 26 Amended MOTION in Limine filed by USA.
At the direction of Chief Judge Eric F. Melgren, defendant will file a response to the
Amended Motion in Limine on or before 11/7/2022. Signed by Chief District Judge
Eric F. Melgren on 10/31/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf
document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 10/31/2022)
10/31/2022 31 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Sealed Motion as to Michael R.
Capps (1). Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 10/31/2022. (ca)
(Entered: 10/31/2022)
11/01/2022 32 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Michael R. Capps. THIS IS AN
OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There
is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Jury Trial set for 12/12/2022 at 09:00
AM in Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren.
Jury Trial set for 12/14/2022, 12/15/2022, and 12/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Wichita
Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. (cm) (Entered:
11/01/2022)
11/17/2022 33 UNOPPOSED MOTION in Limine by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Metzger, Alan)
(Entered: 11/17/2022)
11/17/2022 34 TRIAL ORDER estimated trial time 4 days as to Michael R. Capps. In Limine/Jury
Instructions Conference set for 12/2/2022 at 01:30 PM in Wichita Courtroom 408
(EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Signed by Chief District Judge
Eric F. Melgren on 11/17/2022. (cm) (Entered: 11/17/2022)
11/17/2022 35 ORDER granting 33 Motion in Limine as to Michael R. Capps (1). Exhibit 29 may
be admitted into evidence during the trial of this matter without the necessity of a
sponsoring/foundation witness. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on
11/17/2022. (sz) (Entered: 11/17/2022)
11/28/2022 36 EXHIBIT LIST by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Metzger, Alan) (Entered:
11/28/2022)
11/28/2022 37 WITNESS LIST by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Metzger, Alan) (Entered:
11/28/2022)
11/29/2022 38 AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Metzger, Alan)
(Entered: 11/29/2022)
11/30/2022 39 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Metzger,
Alan) (Entered: 11/30/2022)
11/30/2022 40 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on behalf of USA by Molly M. Gordon. (Gordon,
Molly) (Entered: 11/30/2022)
11/30/2022 41

9
PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Entered:
11/30/2022)
11/30/2022 42 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Metzger,
Alan) (Entered: 11/30/2022)
11/30/2022 43 EXHIBIT LIST by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 11/30/2022)
11/30/2022 44 WITNESS LIST by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 11/30/2022)
11/30/2022 45 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt)
(Entered: 11/30/2022)
12/02/2022 46 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren:
granting 26 Motion in Limine as to Michael R. Capps (1); finding as moot 22 Motion
in Limine as to Michael R. Capps (1); PRETRIAL CONFERENCE as to Michael R.
Capps held on 12/2/2022. (Court Reporter Jo Wilkinson) (This is a TEXT ENTRY
ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered:
12/02/2022)
12/05/2022 47 SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION by USA as to Michael R.
Capps. (Metzger, Alan) (Entered: 12/05/2022)
12/05/2022 48 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Michael R. Capps. THIS IS AN
OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There
is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) In Court/Jury Instructions Conference
set for 12/9/2022 at 09:00 AM in Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM)before Chief District
Judge Eric F. Melgren. (cm) (Entered: 12/05/2022)
12/05/2022 49 AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Entered:
12/05/2022)
12/06/2022 50 AMENDED WITNESS LIST by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Metzger, Alan)
(Entered: 12/06/2022)
12/06/2022 51 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION by USA as to
Michael R. Capps. (Metzger, Alan) (Entered: 12/06/2022)
12/06/2022 52 PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS by USA as to Michael R.
Capps. (Metzger, Alan) (Entered: 12/06/2022)
12/07/2022 53 MOTION in Limine to Bar Expert Testimony by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt)
(Entered: 12/07/2022)
12/07/2022 54 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Michael R. Capps. THIS IS AN
OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There
is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) In Court/Jury Instructions Conference
set for 12/9/2022 at 09:00 AM in Wichita Room 414 (EFM)before Chief District
Judge Eric F. Melgren. NOTE: THIS IS A LOCATION CHANGE ONLY. (cm)
(Entered: 12/07/2022)
12/08/2022 55 AMENDED WITNESS LIST by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Entered:
12/08/2022)
12/08/2022 56 RESPONSE TO MOTION by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 53 Motion in Limine
to Bar Expert Testimony. (Metzger, Alan) (Entered: 12/08/2022)

10
12/09/2022 57 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Dismiss Count 11 by USA as to Michael R. Capps.
(Metzger, Alan) (Entered: 12/09/2022)
12/09/2022 60 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren:
IN COURT/JURY INSTRUCTIONS CONFERENCE as to Michael R. Capps held
on 12/9/2022. (Court Reporter Jo Wilkinson) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There
is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 12/14/2022)
12/12/2022 58 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren:
JURY TRIAL as to Michael R. Capps held on 12/12/2022. (Court Reporter Jo
Wilkinson) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated
with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 12/12/2022)
12/13/2022 59 ORDER granting without prejudice 57 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Count 11 as to
Michael R. Capps (1). Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 12/12/2022.
(mam) (Entered: 12/13/2022)
12/14/2022 61 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren:
JURY TRIAL as to Michael R. Capps held on 12/14/2022. (Court Reporter Jo
Wilkinson) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated
with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 12/14/2022)
12/15/2022 62 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren:
JURY TRIAL as to Michael R. Capps held on 12/15/2022. (Court Reporter Jo
Wilkinson) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated
with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 12/15/2022)
12/18/2022 63 MOTION to Read Instructions to Jury at Close of Evidence by Michael R. Capps.
(Kerns, Kurt) Modified on 12/19/2022 to re−title. (mam) (Entered: 12/18/2022)
12/19/2022 64 SECOND AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt)
(Entered: 12/19/2022)
12/19/2022 65 ORDER denying, in open court, 63 Motion for Order as to Michael R. Capps (1)
Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 12/19/2022. (This is a TEXT
ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered:
12/19/2022)
12/19/2022 66 ORDER for Juror Lunch as to Michael R. Capps. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric
F. Melgren on 12/19/2022. (cm) (Entered: 12/19/2022)
12/19/2022 67 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial, Excerpt of James Clendenin, held 12−14−22 as to
Michael R. Capps before Judge Eric F. Melgren, Court Reporter Jo Wilkinson,
316−315−4334, jo_wilkinson@ksd.uscourts.gov. Transcript purchased by: Mr. Dion
Lefler, Wichita Eagle.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this
filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact,
of the party's intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic
transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at
www.ksd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to
Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made
electronically available on the date set forth below.

11
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After
that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter or PACER. Release of
Transcript Restriction set for 3/20/2023. (jw) (Entered: 12/19/2022)
12/19/2022 68 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren:
JURY TRIAL as to Michael R. Capps held on 12/19/2022. (Court Reporter Jo
Wilkinson) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated
with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 12/19/2022)
12/19/2022 69 INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY as to Michael R. Capps. (sz) (Entered:
12/20/2022)
12/21/2022 70 QUESTIONS FROM THE JURY filed as to Michael R. Capps. (kas) (Entered:
12/21/2022)
12/21/2022 71 ORDER as to Michael R. Capps. Lunch ordered for jurors during deliberations.
Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 12/21/2022. (cm) (Entered:
12/21/2022)
12/21/2022 72 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren:
JURY TRIAL as to Michael R. Capps concluded on 12/21/2022. (Court Reporter Jo
Wilkinson) (Attachments: # 1 Witness Sheet, # 2 Exhibit List Plaintiff's, # 3 Exhibit
List Defendant's) (cm) (Entered: 12/22/2022)
12/21/2022 73 JURY VERDICT as to Michael R. Capps (1). Defendant found Guilty on Counts
1−2, 4−5, 7−10 and 12−15; Not Guilty on Counts 3, 6 and 16−19. (mam) (Additional
attachment(s) added on 12/22/2022: # 1 Unredacted Verdict) (mam). (Entered:
12/22/2022)
12/21/2022 74 FORFEITURE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY as to Michael R. Capps. Signed by
District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 12/21/2022. (mam) (Entered: 12/22/2022)
12/21/2022 75 SPECIAL VERDICT FORM FOR FORFEITURE as to Michael R. Capps. (mam)
(Additional attachment(s) added on 12/22/2022: # 1 Unredacted Special Verdict
Form) (mam). (Entered: 12/22/2022)
12/27/2022 76 TRANSCRIPT of Excerpt of Jury Trial, Defense Opening Statements, held
December 12, 2022, as to Michael R. Capps before Judge Eric F. Melgren, Court
Reporter Jo Wilkinson, 316−315−4334, jo_wilkinson@ksd.uscourts.gov. Transcript
purchased by: Ms. Molly M. Gordon.

12
01/09/2023 77 MOTION for New Trial by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 01/09/2023)
01/12/2023 78 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Michael R. Capps. THIS IS AN
OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There
is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Sentencing set for 3/10/2023 at 09:30
AM in Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren.
The court failed to docket the sentencing date at the conclusion of the trial. This entry
fixes that error. (cm) (Entered: 01/12/2023)
01/13/2023 79 TRANSCRIPT of Excerpt of Jury Trial Volume III held December 15, 2022, as to
Michael R. Capps before Judge Eric F. Melgren, Court Reporter Jo Wilkinson,
316−315−4334, jo_wilkinson@ksd.uscourts.gov. Transcript purchased by: Ms.
Molly Gordon. Volume: III.

13
02/17/2023 84 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 77 Defendant's Motion for a New Trial as
to Michael R. Capps (1). Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on
2/17/2023. (mam) (Entered: 02/17/2023)
02/21/2023 85 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Michael R. Capps. THIS IS AN
OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There
is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Due to a conflict on the Court's
calendar, the Sentencing is being reset for 3/30/2023 at 02:30 PM in Wichita
Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. (cm) (Entered:
02/21/2023)
03/22/2023 86 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Michael R. Capps. THIS IS AN
OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There
is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) At request of counsel, the Sentencing
is reset for 4/24/2023 at 01:30 PM in Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief
District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Sentencing Memorandum Deadline set for 4/17/2023.
(cm) (Entered: 03/22/2023)
04/14/2023 87 PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT as to Michael R. Capps.

(NOTE: Access to this document is restricted to the USA and this defendant.)

(USPO) (Entered: 04/14/2023)
04/14/2023 88 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Michael R. Capps. THIS IS AN
OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There
is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Sentencing set for 5/11/2023 at 02:00
PM in Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM) before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren.
Sentencing Memorandum Deadline set for 5/5/2023. (cm) (Entered: 04/14/2023)
05/01/2023 89 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial, Testimony of Michael Capps, held December 15, 2022,
as to Michael R. Capps before Judge Eric F. Melgren, Court Reporter Jo Wilkinson,
316−315−4334, jo_wilkinson@ksd.uscourts.gov. Transcript purchased by: Ms.
Molly Gordon.

14
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this
filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact,
of the party's intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic
transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at
www.ksd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to
Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made
electronically available on the date set forth below.

(NOTE: Access to this document is restricted to the USA and this defendant.)

(USPO) (Entered: 05/12/2023)
05/12/2023 98 JUDGMENT as to Michael R. Capps (1) − Counts: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7−10, 12−15 Sentenced
to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release; each count, running
concurrently. $1200.00 special assessment fee. $318,647.21 restitution. Acquitted on
Counts 3, 6, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Count 11, Dismissed per the Order filed 12/13/2022.
Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 5/12/2023. (ca) (Entered:
05/12/2023)
05/12/2023 99 STATEMENT OF REASONS as to Michael R. Capps re 98 Judgment.

(NOTE: Access to this document is restricted to the USA and this defendant.)

15
(ca) (Entered: 05/12/2023)
05/16/2023 100 MOTION to Withdraw Kurt Kerns as Attorney by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt)
(Entered: 05/16/2023)
05/17/2023 101 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 10CCA as to defendant Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt)
(Entered: 05/17/2023)
05/26/2023 APPEAL FEE STATUS: filing fee Not Paid re: 101 Notice of Appeal on behalf of
Defendant Michael R. Capps. (THIS IS A TEXT ONLY ENTRY−NO DOCUMENT
IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TRANSACTION) (kas) (Entered: 05/26/2023)
05/26/2023 102 PRELIMINARY RECORD ON APPEAL transmitted to 10CCA as to Michael R.
Capps re 101 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Preliminary Packet)(kas) (Entered:
05/26/2023)
05/26/2023 103 MOTION for Determination of Eligibility for Appointment of Counsel Under CJA
by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Entered: 05/26/2023)
05/26/2023 104 DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL by Michael R. Capps re 101 Notice of
Appeal. (Appeal No. 23−3095) (Kerns, Kurt) (Additional attachment(s) added on
6/12/2023: # 1 Corrected Designation of Record) (msb) (Entered: 05/26/2023)
05/26/2023 105 (VIEW RESTRICTED − PLEASE DISREGARD THIS ENTRY AND SEE DE 108
FOR CORRECT ENTRY.) −− TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM: Transcript
Requested Sentencing 5/11/23 re 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael R. Capps.
(Kerns, Kurt) Modified text on 5/30/2023. (msb) (Entered: 05/26/2023)
05/26/2023 106 (VIEW RESTRICTED − PLEASE DISREGARD THIS ENTRY AND SEE DE 108
FOR CORRECT ENTRY.) −− TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM: Transcript
Requested Sentencing 5/11/23 re 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael R. Capps.
(Kerns, Kurt) Modified text on 5/30/2023. (msb) (Entered: 05/26/2023)
05/26/2023 107 APPEAL DOCKETED in 10CCA on 5/26/2023 and assigned Appeal No. 23−3095
re 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael R. Capps. (kas) (Entered: 05/26/2023)
05/30/2023 108 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM: Transcript Requested Sentencing 5/11/23 re 101
Notice of Appeal filed by Michael R. Capps. (Kerns, Kurt) (Additional attachment(s)
added on 5/30/2023: # 1 Transcript Order Form) (msb) (Entered: 05/30/2023)
05/30/2023 109 ORDER granting 103 Motion to Determine Eligibility for Appointment of Counsel
Under CJA as to Michael R. Capps (1). The Court finds that the defendant is eligible
for the appointment of counsel under CJA and is granted IFP status. Signed by Chief
District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 5/30/2023. (kas) (Entered: 05/30/2023)
05/30/2023 110 CJA 23 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT by Michael R. Capps. (kas) (Entered:
05/30/2023)
05/30/2023 111 ORDER granting 100 Motion to Withdraw as to Michael R. Capps (1). Attorney Kurt
Kerns is withdrawn from this case. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on
5/30/2023. (kas) (Entered: 05/30/2023)
05/31/2023 112 ORDER of 10CCA appointing the Federal Public Defender for the Districts of
Colorado and Wyoming to represent appellant Michael R. Capps re 101 Notice of
Appeal. (Appeal No. 23−3095) (kas) (Entered: 05/31/2023)
06/12/2023 113

16
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Please find attached the corrected 104 Designation of
Record on Appeal filed by Michael R. Capps. The corrected document has been
attached to the original filing DE 104 and to this filing for noticing purposes only.
(msb) (Entered: 06/12/2023)
06/12/2023 114 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by attorney Jacob Rasch−Chabot appearing for Michael
R. Capps. (Rasch−Chabot, Jacob) (Entered: 06/12/2023)
06/12/2023 115 MOTION for Release Pending Appeal by Michael R. Capps. (Rasch−Chabot, Jacob)
(Entered: 06/12/2023)
06/14/2023 116 ORDER as to Michael R. Capps re 115 Motion for Release Pending Appeal filed by
Michael R. Capps. At the direction of Judge Eric F. Melgren, the government's
response to DE 115 is due on or before 6/20/2023. Signed by Chief District Judge
Eric F. Melgren on 6/14/2023. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf
document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 06/14/2023)
06/20/2023 117 ORDER as to Michael R. Capps re 115 Morion for Release >Pending Appeal filed by
Michael R. Capps. At the direction of Judge Eric F. Melgren, the government's
response is now due on or before noon, 6/22/2023. Signed by Chief District Judge
Eric F. Melgren on 6/20/2023. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf
document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 06/20/2023)
06/21/2023 118 RESPONSE TO MOTION by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 115 Motion for
Release Pending Appeal. (Gordon, Molly) (Entered: 06/21/2023)
06/22/2023 119 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Michael R. Capps re 115 Motion for
Release Pending Appeal. (Rasch−Chabot, Jacob) (Entered: 06/22/2023)
06/22/2023 120 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM: Transcript Requested Initial appearance on 9/22/21;
Pretrial Conference held on 12/2/2022; Jury Instructions Conference held on 12/9/22;
Jury Trial held on 12/12/22, 12/14/22, 12/15/22, 12/19/22,12/21/22; Sentencing
Hearing held 5/11/23. re 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael R. Capps.
(Rasch−Chabot, Jacob) (Entered: 06/22/2023)
06/23/2023 121 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 115 Motion for Release from Custody
Pending Appeal as to Michael R. Capps. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F.
Melgren on June 23, 2023. (mls) (Entered: 06/23/2023)
07/06/2023 122 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Court Reporter Johanna L. Wilkinson ordering
trial transcripts held on 12/9/22, 12/12/22, 12/14/22, 12/15/22, 12/19/22, 12/21/22,
Pretrial Conference held 12/2/22, 9/22/21 Initial Appearance, and 5/11/23 Sentencing
Hearing re 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael R. Capps. (Appeal No. 23−3095)
Transcripts due by 7/22/2023. (kas) (Entered: 07/06/2023)
07/17/2023 123 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on behalf of USA by Kathryn E. Sheedy. (Sheedy,
Kathryn) (Entered: 07/17/2023)
07/17/2023 124 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT to Garnishee
Northwestern Mutual by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
07/17/2023)
07/17/2023 125 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT to Garnishee
Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy,
Kathryn) (Entered: 07/17/2023)

17
07/17/2023 126 WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ENTERED BY CLERK as to Michael
R. Capps. Garnishee Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation; writ issued to US
Attorney. (Attachments: # 1 Instructions to Debtor)(nao) (Entered: 07/17/2023)
07/17/2023 127 WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ENTERED BY CLERK as to Michael
R. Capps. Garnishee Northwestern Mutual; writ issued to US Attorney.
(Attachments: # 1 Instructions to Debtor) (nao) (Entered: 07/17/2023)
07/20/2023 128 CERTIFICATE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT by Court Reporter Johanna L.
Wilkinson. (Wilkinson, Johanna) (Entered: 07/20/2023)
07/20/2023 129 TRANSCRIPT of Other Hearing held September 22, 2021 as to Michael R. Capps
before Judge Gwynne E. Birzer, Court Reporter Jo Wilkinson,
redwoof58@yahoo.com. Tape Number: 1:31−1:41. Transcript purchased by: Mr.
Jacob Rasch−Chabot.

18
transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at
www.ksd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to
Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made
electronically available on the date set forth below.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this
filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact,

19
of the party's intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic
transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at
www.ksd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to
Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made
electronically available on the date set forth below.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this
filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact,

20
of the party's intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic
transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at
www.ksd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to
Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made
electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After
that date it may be obtained through PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for
10/18/2023. (Wilkinson, Johanna) (Entered: 07/20/2023)
07/31/2023 138 RECORD ON APPEAL transmitted to 10CCA electronically as to Michael R. Capps.
Volumes 3 re 101 Notice of Appeal. (Appeal No. 23−3095) (kas) (Entered:
07/31/2023)
08/03/2023 139 ANSWER to 127 Writ of Continuing Garnishment by Northwestern Mutual. (ca)
(Entered: 08/03/2023)
08/04/2023 140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 126 Writ of
Continuing Garnishment as to Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation. (Sheedy,
Kathryn) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/04/2023 141 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 127 Writ of
Continuing Garnishment as to Northwestern Mutual. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
08/04/2023)
08/10/2023 142 ANSWER to 126 Writ of Continuing Garnishment by Ohio National Life Assurance
Corporation. (mam) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/30/2023 143 RETURN OF SERVICE of Notice of Forfeiture served on the FBI as to Michael R.
Capps. (Gurney, Annette) (Entered: 08/30/2023)
08/30/2023 144 RETURN OF SERVICE of Notice of Forfeiture served on the property as to Michael
R. Capps. (Gurney, Annette) (Entered: 08/30/2023)
08/30/2023 145 RETURN OF SERVICE of Notice of Forfeiture served on Pershing, LLC as to
Michael R. Capps. (Gurney, Annette) (Entered: 08/30/2023)
08/30/2023 146 RETURN OF SERVICE of Notice of Forfeiture served on Cybertron International,
Inc. as to Michael R. Capps. (Gurney, Annette) (Entered: 08/30/2023)
08/30/2023 147 RETURN OF SERVICE of Notice of Forfeiture served on the U.S. Small Business
Administration as to Michael R. Capps. (Gurney, Annette) (Entered: 08/30/2023)
09/05/2023 148 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT to Garnishee
Knopp Law Group, P.A. by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn)
(Entered: 09/05/2023)
09/05/2023 149 WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ENTERED BY CLERK as to Michael
R. Capps. Garnishee Knopp Law Group, P.A.; writ issued to US Attorney.
(Attachments: # 1 Notice and Instructions). (mls) (Entered: 09/05/2023)
09/06/2023 150 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 149 Writ of
Continuing Garnishment as to Knopp Law Group, P.A. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
09/06/2023)
09/06/2023 151

21
MOTION for Garnishee Order as to Northwestern Mutual by USA as to Michael R.
Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 09/06/2023)
09/06/2023 152 MOTION for Garnishee Order as to Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation by
USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 09/06/2023)
09/07/2023 153 GARNISHEE ORDER granting 151 Motion for Garnishee Order as to Michael R.
Capps. Garnishee Northwestern Mutual shall immediately liquidate and pay over the
property ($1,225.16) to the United States. Once Northwestern Mutual no longer has
custody, possession, or control of any property in which Defendant Michael R. Capps
has an interest or once Northwestern Mutual is no longer indebted to Defendant
Michael R. Capps and will not become indebted to Defendant Michael R. Capps in
the future, Northwestern Mutual is released and discharged as Garnishee in this
action. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 9/7/2023. (mls) (Entered:
09/07/2023)
09/07/2023 154 GARNISHEE ORDER granting 152 Motion for Garnishee Order as to Michael R.
Capps. Garnishee Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation shall immediately
liquidate and pay over the property ($568.99) of Defendant Michael R. Capps to the
United States. This order shall remain in effect until such time as Garnishee no longer
has custody, possession, or control of any property in which Defendant Michael R.
Capps has an interest or for which Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation is or
may become indebted to Defendant. Once Garnishee Ohio National Life Assurance
Corporation no longer has custody, possession, or control of any property in which
Defendant Michael R. Capps has an interest or once Garnishee Ohio National Life
Assurance Corporation is no longer indebted to Defendant Michael R. Capps and will
not become indebted to Defendant Michael R. Capps in the future, Garnishee Ohio
National Life Assurance Corporation is released and discharged as Garnishee in this
action. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 9/7/2023. (mls) (Entered:
09/07/2023)
09/12/2023 155 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT to Garnishee
Coinbase, Inc. by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
09/12/2023)
09/12/2023 156 WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ENTERED BY CLERK as to Michael
R. Capps. Garnishee Coinbase, Inc.; writ issued to US Attorney. (Attachments: # 1
Instructions to Defendant) (jal) (Entered: 09/12/2023)
09/19/2023 157 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 156 Writ of
Continuing Garnishment as to Coinbase, Inc. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
09/19/2023)
09/19/2023 158 NOTICE of Garnishment and Instructions to Interested Parties by USA as to Michael
R. Capps re 156 Writ of Continuing Garnishment to Coinbase, Inc. (Sheedy,
Kathryn) (Entered: 09/19/2023)
09/25/2023 159 ANSWER to 156 Writ of Continuing Garnishment by Coinbase, Inc. (mam)
(Entered: 09/25/2023)
09/26/2023 160 ANSWER to 149 Writ of Continuing Garnishment by Knopp Law Group, P.A.
(mam) (Entered: 09/27/2023)
12/08/2023 161 PRO SE MOTION for Declaratory Judgment Regarding Exclusion of Social Security
Disability Benefits from Garnishment and, in the Alternative, for Injunctive Relief by

22
Michael R. Capps. (jal) (Entered: 12/08/2023)
12/19/2023 162 PARTIAL RELEASE OF JUDGMENT LIEN − Property Located in Sedgwick
County, KS by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
12/19/2023)
12/21/2023 163 MOTION Dismiss Defendant's 161 Pro Se Motion for Declaratory Judgment
Regarding Exclusion of Social Security Disability Benefits from Garnishment and, in
the Alternative, for Injunctive Relief by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit A − Notice of Intent to Offset)(Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 12/21/2023)
12/29/2023 164 MOTION to Enforce Sentencing Order by Michael R. Capps. (mam) (Entered:
01/02/2024)
01/01/2024 165 AMENDED MOTION to Enforce Sentencing Order by Michael R. Capps. (mam)
(Entered: 01/02/2024)
01/02/2024 166 NOTICE OF INTENT by Michael R. Capps to File a Reply to 163 Motion to
Dismiss Defendant's 161 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. (mam) (Entered:
01/02/2024)
01/03/2024 167 RESPONSE TO MOTION by Michael R. Capps re 163 Motion to Dismiss 161
Defendant's Motion for Declaratory Judgment. (mam) (Entered: 01/03/2024)
01/11/2024 168 RESPONSE TO MOTION by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 165 Amended Motion
to Enforce Sentencing Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Gurney,
Annette) (Entered: 01/11/2024)
01/18/2024 169 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Michael R. Capps re 164 / 165 Motions to
Enforce Sentencing Order. (mam) (Entered: 01/18/2024)
02/05/2024 170 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT to Garnishee
Security 1st Title, LLC by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
02/05/2024)
02/05/2024 171 WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ENTERED BY CLERK as to Michael
R. Capps. Garnishee Security 1st Title, LLC; writ issued to US Attorney.
(Attachments: # 1 Instructions to Debtor) (jk) (Entered: 02/05/2024)
02/09/2024 172 NOTICE of Garnishment and Instructions to Interested Parties, Garnishee Security
1st Title, LLC by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 171 Writ of Continuing
Garnishment (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 02/09/2024)
02/14/2024 173 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 171 Writ of
Continuing Garnishment as to Security 1st Title. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
02/14/2024)
02/27/2024 174 LIMITED APPEARANCE of Claimant Charles Capps to Object to Garnishment
(Doc. 171 ) AND to Provide Notice of Intepleader Action by Knopp Law Group,
P.A. as to Michael R. Capps. (Knopp, Ted) Modified on 7/15/2024 to re−title. (mam)
(Entered: 02/27/2024)
02/28/2024 175 EXEMPTION CLAIM AND HEARING REQUEST by Michael R. Capps. (kas)
(Entered: 02/28/2024)
02/29/2024 176 ANSWER to 170 Application for Writ of Continuing Garnishment by Security 1st
Title, LLC. (kas) (Entered: 02/29/2024)

23
02/29/2024 177 ORDER as to Michael R. Capps re 175 Motion for Hearing filed by Michael R.
Capps, 174 Objections filed by Knopp Law Group, P.A. At the direction of Judge
Eric F. Melgren, on or before 3/19/2024 the government is instructed to file
responses to both DE 174 and DE 175 . Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F.
Melgren on 2/29/2024. Mailed to pro se party Michael Capps by regular mail. (This
is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)
(cm) (Entered: 02/29/2024)
03/04/2024 DOCKET ANNOTATION: Defendant Michael R. Capps is a registered Pro Se
Participant with E−Filing and ECF Notifications with approval from the court
pursuant to D. Kan. rule CR 49.2 (lrr) (Entered: 03/04/2024)
03/19/2024 178 RESPONSE to 174 Limited Appearance of Claimant Charles Capps to Object to
Garnishment and to Provide Notice of Intepleader Action by USA as to Michael R.
Capps. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Government Exhibits A through S) (Sheedy,
Kathryn) (Entered: 03/19/2024)
03/19/2024 179 OBJECTION to Exemption Claim and 175 Hearing Request by USA as to Michael
R. Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/19/2024)
03/26/2024 180 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA of First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant
and First Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information
as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/26/2024)
04/03/2024 181 MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Reply to the Response to the 179 Objection
by Charles Capps as to Michael R. Capps. (Knopp, Ted) (Entered: 04/03/2024)
04/03/2024 182 ORDER granting 181 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply as to Michael R.
Capps (1). Reply deadline 4/17/2024. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren
on 4/3/2024. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated
with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 04/03/2024)
04/08/2024 183 MOTION for order for Stay of Restitution Pending Appeal by Michael R. Capps.
(Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B, # 3 Attachment
C)(Rasch−Chabot, Jacob) (Entered: 04/08/2024)
04/17/2024 184 MOTION for Stay of Briefing by Charles Capps as to Michael R. Capps. (Knopp,
Ted) (Entered: 04/17/2024)
04/22/2024 185 RESPONSE by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 183 Motion for Stay of Restitution
Pending Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 2018−CV−001307 − Journal Entry
Approving Settlement, # 2 Exhibit B − Warranty Deed − 10202 E Bronco, # 3
Exhibit C − 2018−PR−000662 − Accounting of Administrator, # 4 Exhibit D −
2018−PR−000662 − Journal Entry of Final Settlement) (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
04/22/2024)
04/22/2024 186 MOTION to Quash Requests for Production and Interrogatories and for Sanctions
Against Plaintiff by Michael R. Capps. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3
Exhibit)(Capps, Michael) (Entered: 04/22/2024)
04/29/2024 187 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Michael R. Capps re 183 Motion for Stay
of Restitution Pending Appeal. (Rasch−Chabot, Jacob) (Entered: 04/29/2024)
05/01/2024 188 RESPONSE TO MOTION by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 184 Motion for Stay of
Briefing. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/01/2024)

24
05/01/2024 189 RESPONSE TO MOTION by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 186 Motion to Quash
Requests for Production and Interrogatories and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff.
(Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/01/2024)
05/06/2024 190 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Michael R. Capps re 186 Motion to Quash
Requests for Production and Interrogatories and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff.
(Capps, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2024)
06/12/2024 191 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 183 Motion for Order for Stay of
Restitution Pending Appeal as to Michael R. Capps (1). Any funds that are garnished
are to be deposited into the Court's registry. These funds will not be disbursed by the
Clerk of the Court until further order by the Court. Signed by Chief District Judge
Eric F. Melgren on 6/11/2024. (ca) (Entered: 06/12/2024)
06/13/2024 192 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER − Denying 161 Defendant's Motion for
Declaratory Judgment. Granting 163 Government's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's
Motion for Declaratory Judgment. Denying 164 Defendant's Motion to Enforce
Sentencing Order. Denying 165 Defendant's Amended Motion to Enforce Sentencing
Order. Denying 175 Defendant's Exemption Claim and Hearing Request. Denying as
moot 184 Claimant Charles Capps' Motion for Extension of time. Denying 186
Defendant's Motion to Quash or Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Chief District
Judge Eric F. Melgren on 6/13/2024. (ca) (Entered: 06/13/2024)
06/17/2024 193 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 10CCA by Michael R. Capps re 192 Memorandum and
Order. (ca) (Entered: 06/17/2024)
06/17/2024 APPEAL FEE STATUS: filing fee not paid re: 193 Notice of Appeal on behalf of
Defendant Michael R. Capps. CJA 23 filed on 5/30/2023. (THIS IS A TEXT ONLY
ENTRY−NO DOCUMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TRANSACTION) (ca)
(Entered: 06/17/2024)
06/17/2024 194 PRELIMINARY RECORD ON APPEAL transmitted to 10CCA as to Michael R.
Capps re 193 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Preliminary Packet)(ca) (Entered:
06/17/2024)
06/18/2024 195 APPEAL DOCKETED in 10CCA on 6/17/2024 and assigned Appeal No. 24−3083
re 193 Notice of Appeal. (ca) (Entered: 06/18/2024)
06/18/2024 196 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on behalf of USA by Carrie Nicole Capwell. (Capwell,
Carrie) (Entered: 06/18/2024)
06/24/2024 197 OBJECTION to 171 Garnishment by United States of America to Security 1st Title,
LLC by Charles Capps as to Michael R. Capps. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Knopp,
Ted) (Entered: 06/24/2024)
06/27/2024 198 RECORD ON APPEAL retrieved by 10CCA as to Michael R. Capps, re 193 Notice
of Appeal. (Appeal No. 24−3083). (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf
document associated with this entry.) (ca) (Entered: 06/27/2024)
07/01/2024 199 MOTION / REQUEST for Hearing on Objection of Charles Capps to Garnishment of
Escrow Funds by Charles Capps as to Michael R. Capps. (Knopp, Ted) (Entered:
07/01/2024)
07/08/2024 200 RESPONSE AND PROCEDURAL OBJECTION re 197 Claimant's Objection to 171
Garnishment to Security 1st Title, LLC by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy,
Kathryn) (Entered: 07/08/2024)

25
07/08/2024 201 MOTION to Stay Enforcement of Memorandum and Order Pending Appeal by
Michael R. Capps. (Capps, Michael) (Entered: 07/08/2024)
07/09/2024 202 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 199 Request for
Hearing. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 07/09/2024)
07/22/2024 203 ORDER granting 199 Motion for Hearing as to Michael R. Capps (1). Motion
Hearing set for 9/12/2024 at 09:30 AM in Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM) before
Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren
on 7/22/2024. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated
with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 07/22/2024)
07/22/2024 204 NOTICE of Motion Hearing as to Michael R. Capps re 203 Order on Motion for
Hearing. As noted on the docket, the motion hearing has been scheduled for
9/12/2024 at 9:30 a.m. The parties need to come prepared to fully argue their
positions. (cm) (Entered: 07/22/2024)
07/22/2024 205 NOTICE of Non−Opposition to Stay by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 201 Motion
to Stay Enforcement of Memorandum and Order Pending Appeal. (Sheedy, Kathryn)
(Entered: 07/22/2024)
07/23/2024 206 ORDER granting 201 Motion to Stay Enforcement of Memorandum and Order
Pending Appeal as to Michael R. Capps. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F.
Melgren on 7/23/2024. (jal) (Entered: 07/23/2024)
07/26/2024 207 MOTION for Order Restraining Property and Rights to Property Available for
Payment of Restitution by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered:
07/26/2024)
08/21/2024 208 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION as to Michael R. Capps. THIS IS AN
OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING 207 Motion for Order Restraining
Property and Rights to Property Available for Payment of Restitution : (This is a
TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Motion
Hearing set for 9/12/2024 at 09:30 AM in Wichita Courtroom 408 (EFM) before
Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren. This hearing will be in conjunction with the
currently scheduled motion hearing as set out in DE 204.(cm) (Entered: 08/21/2024)
09/11/2024 209 (STRICKEN per 210) −− RESPONSE TO MOTION by Michael R. Capps re 207
Motion for Order Restraining Property and Rights to Property Available for Payment
of Restitution. (Capps, Michael) Modified on 9/12/2024, see 210. (mam) (Entered:
09/11/2024)
09/12/2024 210 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren:
MOTION HEARING as to Michael R. Capps held on 9/12/2024. The Court strikes
Michael Capps's response (Doc. 209) to the Government's Motion for Restraining
Order because it is untimely. The Court directs the Government and Charles Capps to
file supplemental briefing as to the limited issues discussed during the hearing by
September 20, 2024. (Court Reporter Annie States) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY.
There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (sn) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
09/17/2024 211 AMENDED MOTION for Order Restraining Property and Rights to Property
Available for Payment of Restitution by USA as to Michael R. Capps. (Sheedy,
Kathryn) (Entered: 09/17/2024)
09/20/2024 212 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Charles Capps as to Michael R. Capps per
210. (Knopp, Ted) (Entered: 09/20/2024)

26
09/20/2024 213 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING by USA as to Michael R. Capps per 210. (Sheedy,
Kathryn) (Entered: 09/20/2024)
09/30/2024 214 RESPONSE TO MOTION by Michael R. Capps re 211 Amended Motion for Order
Restraining Property and Rights to Property Available for Payment of Restitution.
(Capps, Michael) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
09/30/2024 215 JOINT MOTION for Distribution of Funds by Charles Capps as to Michael R.
Capps. (Knopp, Ted) Modified on 9/30/2024 to add Duaglo, LLC as a filer. (mam)
(Entered: 09/30/2024)
09/30/2024 216 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by attorney Ted E. Knopp on behalf of Duaglo, LLC.
(Knopp, Ted) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
09/30/2024 217 JOINT MOTION to Allow Intervention by Duaglo, LLC, Charles Capps as to
Michael R. Capps. (Knopp, Ted) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
10/07/2024 218 REPLY to 214 Response to 211 Motion − Government's Amended Motion for Order
Restraining Property and Rights to Property Available for Payment of Restitution by
USA as to Michael R. Capps (Sheedy, Kathryn) Modified on 10/8/2024 to link to
underlying motion. (jal) (Entered: 10/07/2024)
10/09/2024 219 MOTION for Joinder Joint Motion for Distribution of Funds by Michael R. Capps.
(Capps, Michael) (Entered: 10/09/2024)
10/15/2024 220 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 217 Joint Motion
to Allow Interventio (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D)(Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 10/15/2024)
10/15/2024 221 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 219 MOTION for
Joinder Joint Motion for Distribution of Funds, 215 Joint Motion for Distribution of
Funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 10/15/2024)
10/17/2024 222 MOTION for order of Judicial Recommendation for Designation to FPC Seagoville
by Michael R. Capps. (Rasch−Chabot, Jacob) (Entered: 10/17/2024)
10/21/2024 223 ORDER granting 222 Motion for Order as to Michael R. Capps (1). Signed by Chief
District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 10/21/2024. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY.
There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered: 10/21/2024)
10/24/2024 224 MANDATE from 10CCA affirming decision of the District Court as to defendant
Michael R. Capps (Appeal No. 23−3095) (Attachments: # 1 Judgment, # 2 10CCA
Mandate Letter)(msb) (Entered: 10/24/2024)
10/27/2024 225 MOTION to Vacate by Michael R. Capps. (Capps, Michael) (Entered: 10/27/2024)
10/28/2024 226 ORDER granting 225 Motion to Vacate Doc 121 as to Michael R. Capps (1). Signed
by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 10/28/2024. (This is a TEXT ENTRY
ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm) (Entered:
10/28/2024)
10/29/2024 227 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Duaglo, LLC, Charles Capps, Knopp Law
Group, P.A. as to Michael R. Capps re 219 MOTION for Joinder Joint Motion for
Distribution of Funds Joint Reply of Charles Capps and Duaglo, LLC to United
States Response in Opposition to Motion for Distribution of Funds (Knopp, Ted)
(Entered: 10/29/2024)

27
10/29/2024 228 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Duaglo, LLC, Charles Capps, Knopp Law
Group, P.A. as to Michael R. Capps re 217 Joint Motion to Allow Interventio Joint
Reply of Charles Capps and Duaglo, LLC to the Response in Opposition to
Intervention of Duaglo, LLC by the United States (Knopp, Ted) (Entered:
10/29/2024)
11/05/2024 229 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 207 MOTION for Order
Restraining Property and Rights to Property Available for Payment of Restitution;
denying 211 AMENDED MOTION for Order Restraining Property and Rights to
Property; denying 215 JOINT MOTION for Distribution of Funds; denying 217
JOINT MOTION to Allow Intervention; and granting 219 Motion for Joinder as to
Michael R. Capps (1). Claimant Charles Capps's Objection to Garnishment (Doc.
174) is overruled. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 11/5/2024. (kas)
(Entered: 11/05/2024)
11/13/2024 230 MOTION for Garnishee Order ,Garnishee Security 1st Title by USA as to Michael R.
Capps. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Appellant's Opening Brief filed on October 26,
2024)(Sheedy, Kathryn) (Entered: 11/13/2024)
11/18/2024 231 Unopposed MOTION for order for Extension of Time to Voluntarily Surrender by
Michael R. Capps. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Rasch−Chabot,
Jacob) (Entered: 11/18/2024)
11/19/2024 232 ORDER granting 231 Motion for Order or Extension of Time to Voluntarily
Surrender as to defendant Michael R. Capps (1). The Court therefore grants Capps'
Motion and extends his self−surrender date to December 31, 2024, or later as
determined by the BOP. Signed by Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren on
11/19/2024. (msb) (Entered: 11/19/2024)
12/03/2024 233 MOTION for Reconsideration (Alter or Amend) re 229 Memorandum and Order by
Charles Capps as to Michael R. Capps. (Knopp, Ted) Modified text on 12/4/2024
(mls). (Entered: 12/03/2024)
12/10/2024 234 NOTICE OF DISPOSITION OF PASSPORT as to Michael R. Capps. Passport #
640927769, issued by the USA. Passport mailed to the U.S. Department of State,
tracking # 7022 0410 0003 3816 3655. (mam) (Entered: 12/10/2024)
12/17/2024 235 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by USA as to Michael R. Capps re 233 Motion to
Alter or Amend (for Reconsideration) re 229 Memorandum and Order (Sheedy,
Kathryn) Modified text (mls). (Entered: 12/17/2024)
12/23/2024 236 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM: Transcript Requested Minute Entry 9/12/2024 re
193 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael R. Capps. (kmc) (Entered: 12/26/2024)
12/26/2024 237 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Charles Capps as to Michael R. Capps: Re
233 MOTION for Reconsideration 229 Order on Motions (Knopp, Ted) (Entered:
12/26/2024)
12/27/2024 238 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT returned re 234 Notice of Disposition of Passport
addressed to U.S. Department of State. (kas) (Entered: 12/27/2024)
12/31/2024 239 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 10CCA by Michael R. Capps re 229 Memorandum and
Order. (kmc) (Entered: 12/31/2024)
12/31/2024 APPEAL FEE STATUS: filing fee not paid re: 239 Notice of Appeal on behalf of
Defendants Michael R. Capps. CJA 23 filed on 5/30/2023. (THIS IS A TEXT ONLY

28
ENTRY−NO DOCUMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TRANSACTION)
(kmc) (Entered: 12/31/2024)

29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 21-10073-EFM

MICHAEL R. CAPPS,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter primarily comes before the Court on Claimant Charles Capps’s Objection

(Doc. 174)1 to the Government’s Writ of Continuing Garnishment as to funds, in the amount of

$74,573.37, held by Security 1st Title, LLC. The funds at Security 1st are the proceeds from a

sale of a residence that Defendant Michael Capps used to own. Claimant is the son of Defendant,

and he asserts that the Government does not have a right to the funds held by Security 1st and that

he is entitled to $50,000 of those funds due to a mechanic’s lien. The Government contends that

it is entitled to the Security 1st funds, and Claimant’s mechanic’s lien is invalid.

1
Claimant entitled this document “Limited Appearance of Claimant Charles Capps to Object to Garnishment
and to Provide Notice of Interpleader Action.”

30
The Government also filed a Motion for Order Restraining Property and Rights to Property

Available for Payment of Restitution (Doc. 207)2 and an Amended Motion for Order Restraining

Property and Rights to Property Available for Payment of Restitution (Doc. 211). The

Government seeks to restrain Defendant, or any person or entity acting on his behalf, from taking

any action that would diminish the value of Defendant’s real or personal property.

The Court held a hearing on Claimant’s Objection and the Government’s first Motion for

Restraining Order on September 12, 2024. Several weeks after the hearing, Claimant’s attorney

entered his appearance for Duaglo, LLC. Duaglo was involved in the redemption and sale of

Defendant’s residence because Duaglo advanced the redemption funds to Defendant. Claimant

and Duaglo filed joint motions requesting that the Court allow intervention by Duaglo into the case

(Doc. 217) and for distribution of the Security 1st funds to Claimant, Claimant’s attorney, and

Duaglo (Doc. 215). In addition, Defendant filed a Motion to Join in support of Claimant’s and

Duaglo’s motions (Doc. 219). The Government opposes these motions.

For the reasons stated in more detail below, the Court overrules Claimant’s Objection. In

addition, the Court denies as moot the Government’s first Motion for Restraining Order and denies

the Government’s Amended Motion for Restraining Order. Finally, the Court grants Defendant’s

Motion for Joinder, but the Court denies Claimant’s and Duaglo’s Joint Motions for Intervention

and Distribution of Funds.

2
Defendant Capps filed an untimely response to this motion, and the Court struck it.

-2-

31
I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Defendant Michael Capps’s Underlying Criminal Case

On September 8, 2021, Defendant Michael Capps was indicted on 19 counts related to a

fraudulent COVID-19 relief scheme. Defendant proceeded to trial. On December 21, 2022, he

was found guilty on 12 counts, including one count of bank fraud, three counts of false statements

to a bank and the Small Business Administration, four counts of wire fraud, and four counts of

money laundering.

On May 11, 2023, the Court sentenced Defendant to 27 months’ imprisonment, to be

followed by two years of supervised release. Defendant was ordered to pay $318,647.21 in

restitution, and the Court entered a forfeiture judgment in the amount of $178,193.17. Defendant

appealed his conviction to the Tenth Circuit on May 17, 2023. The Court allowed Defendant’s

release during his appeal.

On August 13, 2024, the Tenth Circuit issued its order on Defendant’s underlying appeal

finding that it was not plain error or an abuse of discretion to instruct the jury at the beginning of

Defendant’s case. Thus, the Tenth Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment and issued the mandate

on October 24, 2024.

B. Garnishment Proceedings as to Defendant Capps

During the pendency of Defendant’s appeal, the Government initiated garnishment

proceedings as to Defendant’s property to recover the amount of restitution Defendant owes.

-3-

32
Defendant filed numerous motions and objections to the garnishment proceedings. The Court

denied Defendant’s motions in an Order dated June 13, 2024.3

Defendant appealed this Court’s June 13 Order to the Tenth Circuit, and the Government

filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s appeal. These matters remain pending in the Tenth Circuit

with the same panel of judges. On July 23, 2024, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Stay

Enforcement of the June 13 Order until the Tenth Circuit issues a decision on that appeal and/or a

decision on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.

C. Defendant’s Governeour Street Residence and Claimant’s Objection

On February 8, 2020, Defendant and Claimant entered into an agreement (“Remodeling

Contract”) for Claimant to renovate an unoccupied, residential property on Governeour Street

(“Residence” or “Property”). The Remodeling Contract provided that Defendant would pay

Claimant $50,000 upon the sale of the Residence. In addition, Defendant agreed to pay Claimant

50% of any net proceeds in excess of $100,000.

On May 11, 2022, Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Lakeview”), filed a Petition to

Foreclose Mortgage in the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas against Defendant, relating

to the Governeour Street Residence. Defendant informed Claimant of the foreclosure petition, and

Claimant shortly thereafter stopped work on the Property because he was concerned that he would

not be compensated.

3
Doc. 192. The Court will not set forth its rulings here.

-4-

33
On February 17, 2023, a Judgment of Foreclosure was granted to Lakeview which directed

the Residence to be sold if the judgment was not satisfied within 14 days. In the Foreclosure

Judgment, Lakeview was granted a judgment of $119,481.75.4

On June 28, 2023, the Sheriff of Sedgwick County sold the Residence by credit bid, to

Lakeview for $152,708.59. An order confirming the sale was entered on July 24, 2023. This order

also showed Defendant’s redemption period expiring on September 28, 2023—three months after

the date of sale.

Claimant avers that after the June 28 sale, he and Defendant evaluated the Property in its

unfinished condition and the value of the Property if remodeling were complete. They determined

that there was equity remaining in the Property if the remodeling was finished. Starting on or after

June 28, 2023, Claimant began working on the Residence to make it marketable. Some of the

tasks Claimant completed included installing carpet, building a new deck, installing countertops,

remodeling bathrooms, and painting interior surfaces.

On August 18, 2023, the Government filed its Notice of Lien for Fine and/or Restitution

with the Register of Deeds of Sedgwick County. Defendant resided at the Governeour Street

Residence, so the Government filed two different types of liens—one to encumber all of

Defendant’s personal property, and the other one to encumber Defendant’s real estate.

Defendant had no money to redeem the Property, so he entered into an agreement with

Duaglo to redeem the Property. On August 28, 2023, Defendant transferred his interest in the

Governeour Street Residence, including his equitable and statutory right to redeem the Property

4
Cybertron International, Inc. was granted a second lien against the Property, and Claimant (as a John Doe)
was found to have no interest in the Property. See Doc. 197-1 at 3, ¶ 5.

-5-

34
and the right to any surplus upon Sheriff’s sale, to Duaglo. In a separate agreement, Defendant

reserved the right to occupy the Property and the right to repurchase from Duaglo for $167,708.59.

No funds were exchanged between Duaglo and Defendant.

On August 28, 2023, Duaglo redeemed the Governeour Street Residence by paying the

redemption price of $155,027.04 to the Court Clerk for the District Court of Sedgwick County.

On September 28, 2023, Duaglo entered a contract with Gary Bohannon to sell the Residence for

$253,500, with a closing date of November 28, 2023, but the closing date was delayed.

Claimant completed the remodeling work on November 27, 2023, and on November 28,

2023, he filed a Statement of Lien for Labor, Equipment, Material and Supplies (“mechanic’s

lien”) with the District Court of Sedgwick County. He attached the Remodeling Contract between

him and Defendant to the filing. Claimant asserts that this Remodeling Contract was reaffirmed

between the parties after the Sheriff’s sale on June 28, 2023.

On December 13, 2023, Duaglo and Defendant executed an Extension and Amendment of

Contract for Purchase of Property and Redemption Rights (“Amendment”). This Amendment

reduced the price for Defendant to repurchase the Property from Duaglo from $167,708.59 (the

original agreement price) to $155,027.04 (the amount Duaglo paid to redeem the Property).5 The

Amendment states that the Government agreed that (a) Duaglo may be paid out of the closing

amount on the condition that the price be $155,027.04, and that (b) the Government would “file a

Partial Release of Judgment Lien that releases the Property from the lien in exchange for the

deposit of all funds ‘due to Seller’ at Closing into an escrow with Security 1st to be held pending

5
The Amendment reduced the profit due to Duaglo of $12,681.58 to zero. The Court notes that Duaglo and
Claimant state that the amount would have been $12,881.58, but the amount actually equals $12,681.58.

-6-

35
agreement of the parties or entry of an order of a court with jurisdiction (the ‘Escrowed Proceeds’)

directing payment by Security 1st.”6

On December 14, 2023, Duaglo conveyed the Property to Defendant by Statutory Warranty

Deed, and then Defendant conveyed the Property to the Bohannons by Statutory Warranty Deed.

The net sale proceeds remaining after payment to Duaglo of $155,027.04 and all other costs of

sale are $74,550.37. Security 1st is holding $74,573.37 in escrow.7

The Government, Defendant, and Claimant were unable to reach an agreement as to the

disposition of the net sale proceeds from the sale of the Governeour Street Residence.

On February 5, 2024, the Government filed an Application for Writ of Continuing

Garnishment as to Property held by Security 1st, and the Court issued the Writ that same day. In

addition, the Government filed a Notice of Garnishment to Interested Party Charles Capps.

On February 27, 2024, Claimant, represented by counsel, filed an Objection to the Writ of

Continuing Garnishment as to the funds held by Security 1st.8 In this Objection, Claimant objected

to the garnishment of any funds on deposit with Security 1st and notified the Court of a civil

6
Doc. 197-1, pp. 9–11. The Government concedes that it required this Amendment; otherwise, the
Government would not release the lien on the Property.
7
The Government asserts that it is unclear as to why the amounts differ slightly.
8
Doc. 174. On February 29, 2024, Security 1st filed an Answer to the Writ of Garnishment, stating that it
has custody or possession of a cash deposit of $74,573.37. It lists Defendant’s interest as a stakeholder/escrow agent.
It also references the interpleader action in Sedgwick County District Court and states that “Defendant has competing
claims to the funds.” Security 1st requests an order to pay the funds into the Court. (Doc. 176).
Defendant Capps also filed an Exemption Claim and Hearing Request related to the Security 1st funds. In
this document, Defendant stated that the Property was subject to an interpleader adjudication in Sedgwick County
District Court and requested a hearing (Doc. 175). The Government objected. The Court ruled on Defendant’s
exemption claim and hearing request in its June 13, 2024 Order. The Court found Defendant did not meet his burden
of showing that he was entitled to relief because his request was conclusory. In addition, the Court determined that
none of the exemptions set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(1)–(8), (10), and (12) were applicable to Defendant because
those exemptions did not cover the sale of a personal residence. Furthermore, the Court denied Defendant’s request
for a hearing. That order is currently on appeal to the Tenth Circuit.

-7-

36
Interpleader Action that he filed that day in Sedgwick County District Court, entitled Charles

(Chaz) Capps v. Michael Capps, the United States of America, & Security 1st Title LLC

(“Interpleader Action”).9 Claimant’s Objection was only two pages, but he attached the

Interpleader Action. In the Interpleader Action, Claimant stated that he had a mechanic’s lien in

the amount of $50,000 in the escrowed funds and that his lien takes priority over other interests.

Claimant requested that the Sedgwick County District Court determine the ownership and

priorities of the parties to the Security 1st escrowed funds that are subject to the Writ of

Garnishment.10

The Government filed a Response to the Objection arguing that Claimant does not have a

valid mechanic’s lien because he failed to comply with the statutory requirements of K.S.A. § 60-

1102, or in the alternative, Claimant’s mechanic’s lien is unenforceable pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-

2414(k). Subsequently, the Court directed Claimant to file a reply to the Government’s response.

Claimant filed another “Objection to Garnishment” setting forth facts and the basis for his

objection to the garnishment of the Security 1st Title funds.11 In his Reply or (Second) Objection,

Claimant argues that the Government does not have any right to the Security 1st Title funds for

multiple reasons.

Claimant also filed a Motion or Request for Hearing on his Objection. The Government

responded by asserting that Claimant did not have a right to a hearing. In addition, the Government

9
Case No. SG-2024-CV-000357.
10
The Government subsequently removed the case to this Court on March 8, 2024. Case No. 24-1042-EFM-
TJJ. There is a pending unopposed Motion to Dismiss in that case.
11
Doc. 197.

-8-

37
procedurally objected to Claimant’s (Second) Objection, stating that it was improper, and

requested that the Court strike it.12 The Government and Claimant continue to disagree as to

whether Claimant is entitled to $50,000 of the funds being held in escrow by Security 1st.

The Court granted Claimant’s request for a hearing and held it on September 12, 2024.13

At the hearing, the Court requested supplemental briefing on two limited issues. Specifically, the

Court requested that the Government provide authority for its position that Duaglo’s redemption

rights—purchased from Defendant—were encumbered by the restitution lien against Defendant

and thus the restitution lien also attached to the Property’s sale proceeds. In addition, the Court

requested that Claimant provide authority for his position that his Interpleader Action cured the

technical failure of his mechanic’s lien.

After the supplemental briefing concluded, and several weeks after the hearing, Claimant’s

attorney entered his appearance for Duaglo. Claimant and Duaglo filed joint motions requesting

Duaglo’s intervention into the case and requesting distribution of the entirety of the Security 1st

funds to Claimant, Duaglo, and their attorney. Specifically, they seek the distribution of $50,000

to Claimant, $5,000 to Claimant’s attorney for attorney fees to date, and the remainder (amounting

to approximately $19,573) to Duaglo. In addition, Defendant filed a Motion to Join the joint

motions.

12
Doc. 200. The Court acknowledges the procedural irregularities in this case, but it will not strike the
(Second) Objection but will instead consider it as Claimant’s Reply and consider it on the merits. The Court also
notes that Claimant (and now Duaglo) continue to raise additional issues/arguments after Claimant’s initial Objection
was filed. Generally, if a party fails to raise an argument in its initial brief, the argument is waived. Although the
Court addresses some of the issues Claimant raises in his supplemental briefing, it will not address all the additional
issues raised in the (Second) Objection, Reply briefs, and supplemental memorandum.
13
The Court also heard argument on the Government’s Motion to Restrain Property and Rights to Property.

-9-

38
II. Analysis

A. Claimant’s Objection

Claimant contends that the Government does not have any rights to the Security 1st

escrowed funds in the amount of $74,573.37, and the Government argues that it is entitled to all

the Security 1st funds. Claimant makes several arguments that the Government failed to properly

obtain rights to the Property. First, Claimant contends that the Government should have redeemed

the Property, but the Government failed to do so. Next, Claimant argues that Defendant’s right to

repurchase the Property expired on November 28, 2023—the scheduled closing date. Thus, he

argues that because Defendant did not repurchase the Property before that date, Defendant did not

have any rights to the Property and so neither did the Government. Finally, Claimant asserts that

he has a valid mechanic’s lien and that he is entitled to $50,000 of those funds.14

The Government argues that its restitution lien attached to Defendant’s right of redemption.

So when Duaglo purchased Defendant’s redemption rights, Duaglo purchased the restitution rights

encumbered with the lien. The Government also asserts that the restitution lien did not merely

attach to the redemption rights but also ran with the Property. Finally, the Government contends

that Claimant does not have a valid mechanic’s lien because it fails to comply with the statutory

requirements of K.S.A. § 60-1102.15 The Court agrees with the Government.

14
In Claimant’s (Second) Objection, he also requested that the Court restore to Duaglo the agreed-upon profit
between Defendant and Duaglo in the amount of $12,881.58. This issue was technically raised as a new issue in the
“reply” brief, and Claimant would not have standing to assert Duaglo’s rights. After the briefing and hearing on
Claimant’s Objection, Duaglo and Claimant requested that Duaglo be allowed to intervene in the case and requested
distribution of funds to Duaglo (in the amount of approximately $19,500). The Court will address these contentions
below.
15
The Government also argues, in the alternative, that Claimant’s mechanic’s lien is unenforceable pursuant
to K.S.A. § 60-2414(k). The Court finds it unnecessary to address this argument.

-10-

39
1. The Government’s Right to the Security 1st Funds

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c), an order of restitution operates as “a lien in favor of the

United States on all property and rights to property of the person fined as if the liability of the

person fined were a liability for a tax assessed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”16

“[W]hether a state-law right constitutes ‘property’ or ‘rights to property’ is a matter of federal

law.”17 There is a two-part test that the Court must consider when the Government seeks to enforce

its tax lien against identified property.18 First, the Court looks “to state law to determine what

rights the taxpayer has in the property the Government seeks to reach.”19 Next, the Court considers

“federal law to determine whether the taxpayer’s state-delineated rights qualify as ‘property’ or

‘rights to property’ within the compass of the federal tax lien legislation.”20

In this case, Security 1st is holding escrowed funds related to the sale of the Governeour

Street Residence. Defendant was the owner of it when it was foreclosed upon by Lakeview in

2022. On May 11, 2023, the Court entered a Judgment against Defendant with restitution ordered

in the amount of $318,647.21. This order of restitution operated as a lien on all Defendant’s

property and rights to property.21

16
18 U.S.C. § 3613(c).
17
Drye v. United States, 528 U.S. 49, 58 (1999) (quoting United States v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S.
713, 727 (1985)).
18
United States v. Wilhite, 774 F. App’x 478, 484 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing In re Krause, 637 F.3d 1160, 1163
(10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Drye, 528 U.S. at 58)).

19
Drye, 528 U.S. at 58.
20
Id.
21
18 U.S.C. § 3613(c) (stating that an order of restitution operates as “a lien in favor of the United States on
all property and rights to property of the person,” and “[t]he lien arises on the entry of judgment.”).

-11-

40
Defendant, as the owner of the Governeour Street Residence, had the statutory right to

redeem the Property pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-2414. On June 28, 2023, the Property was sold by

Sheriff’s sale, and Defendant was given a three-month redemption period until September 28,

2023. This state-law right to redeem is considered Defendant’s property.

On August 18, 2023, the Government filed its Notice of Lien for Fine and/or Restitution

with the Register of Deeds of Sedgwick County. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3613(d), “upon filing of

a notice of lien in the manner in which a notice of tax lien would be filed . . . the lien shall be valid

against any purchaser” subject to some exceptions.22 Thus, the Government’s lien against

Defendant’s property and rights to property attached on May 11, 2023 pursuant to the Order of

Restitution. Therefore, unless an exception applies, the Government’s lien extended to

Defendant’s property right to redeem.

On August 28, 2023—three months after the restitution order was entered against

Defendant and ten days after the Government filed its Notice of Lien in Sedgwick County—

Defendant transferred his interest in the Governeour Street Residence to Duaglo. The transfer

included Defendant’s equitable and statutory right to redeem the Property and the right to any

surplus. That same day, Duaglo redeemed the Governeour Street Residence.23 As noted above,

once the notice of lien is filed, it “shall be valid against any purchaser” subject to certain exceptions

in 26 U.S.C. § 6323(b), (c), or (d).24 Duaglo, as an assignee of redemption rights of real property,

22
18 U.S.C. § 3613(d).
23
Claimant and Duaglo contend that Duaglo’s purchase and redemption was a purchase money interest. The
Court finds that the redemption rights were already encumbered with the lien, so regardless of how Claimant and
Duaglo categorize the transaction, the redemption rights were encumbered with the government lien.
24
18 U.S.C. § 3613(d).

-12-

41
does not fall under any of the exceptions. Thus, when Duaglo obtained Defendant’s redemption

rights, and redeemed the Property, Duaglo obtained the Property encumbered by the Government’s

lien.

The Court recognizes that K.S.A. § 60-2414(h) states that an assignee or transferee of a

right to redemption “shall have the same right of redemption as the defendant owner,” and that

“[t]he assigned or transferred right of redemption shall not be subject to levy or sale on execution.”

However, the Court only looks to state law “for delineation of the taxpayer’s rights or interests”

and “leave[s] to federal law the determination whether those rights or interests constitute ‘property’

or ‘rights to property’ within the meaning of § 6321.”25 Here, the state law first provides that

Defendant has the redemption right, and thus, the redemption right is Defendant’s property. Then,

the Court must turn to federal law, and federal law provides that upon the Government’s filing of

a notice of lien, it is “valid against any purchaser” except to certain properties or transactions.26

None of the exceptions set forth by federal law are present in this case. Thus, federal law dictates

that the redemption right was Defendant’s property, and Duaglo obtained that redemption right

subject to the restitution lien against Defendant.

In addition, the federal lien did not simply attach to the right of redemption that Duaglo

obtained. Instead, the lien ran with the Property. “The transfer of property subsequent to the

attachment of the lien does not affect the lien, for ‘it is of the very nature and essence of a lien,

that no matter into whose hands the property goes, it passes cum onere.’”27 Because Defendant’s

25
Drye, 528 U.S. at 52.
26
18 U.S.C. § 3613(d) (emphasis added).
27
United States v. Bess, 357 U.S. 51, 57 (1958) (quoting Burton v. Smith, 38 U.S. 464, 483 (1839)); see also
Russell v. United States, 551 F.3d 1174, 1179 (10th Cir. 2008) (“The transfer of the attached property ‘does not affect

-13-

42
redemption rights were encumbered with the lien, Duaglo’s redemption rights were also

encumbered by the same lien. So, when Duaglo redeemed the Property, the Property was

encumbered with the lien.

In sum, the Government’s lien attached to Defendant’s property rights and to Defendant’s

property. When Duaglo obtained Defendant’s right to redeem, Duaglo obtained those rights

encumbered by the Government’s lien. And when Duaglo redeemed the Property, the Property

was also encumbered with the lien. Accordingly, when the Property was sold—regardless of

whether Defendant or Duaglo sold it—the proceeds from the sale of that Property were

encumbered by the Government’s lien. Accordingly, the Government is entitled to the proceeds.

2. Claimant’s Mechanic’s Lien

Claimant contends that he is entitled to $50,000 of the escrowed funds due to a mechanic’s

lien. The Court finds that Claimant does not have a valid mechanic’s lien. “Mechanics’ liens are

governed by K.S.A. 60-1101 et seq. They are designed to protect unpaid suppliers of labor and

materials for real estate construction projects.”28 “Kansas law requires strict compliance with the

procedure prescribed in the statute in order to perfect a mechanic’s lien.”29

K.S.A. § 60-1102(a)(2) requires that any person claiming a lien on real property must file

a verified statement with “the name and address sufficient for service of process of the claimant”

within four months after the last labor performed.

the lien because no matter into whose hands the property goes, the property passes cum onere, or with the lien
attached.’”) (quoting United States v. Cache Valley Bank, 866 F.2d 1242, 1244-45 (10th Cir. 1989)).
28
Tarlton v. Miller’s of Claflin, Inc., 43 Kan. App. 2d 547, 227 P.3d 23, 26 (2010) (citing K.S.A. § 60-1101)).
29
Buchanan v. Overley, 39 Kan. App. 2d 171, 178 P.3d 53, 56 (2008) (citing Haz-Mat Response, Inc. v.
Certified Waste Servs. Ltd., 259 Kan. 166, 910 P.3d 839 (1996)).

-14-

43
Claimant filed his mechanic’s lien on November 28, 2023 with the District Court of

Sedgwick County, asserting that he was entitled to $50,000. Claimant’s lien, however, does not

comply with § 60-1102(a)(2) because the address Claimant provided on his mechanic’s lien was

for a property at which Claimant did not reside.30 Because Claimant did not live at the provided

address, it cannot be considered sufficient for service of process. Without an address sufficient

for service of process on Claimant, the mechanic’s lien does not strictly comply with the statute

and is invalid.31

Claimant concedes that the mechanic’s lien contains an invalid address.32 Claimant,

however, asserts that the filing of the Interpleader Action cured any defects in the mechanic’s lien

because the Interpleader Action was filed within the four-month timeframe as required under

K.S.A. § 60-1102(a).33 Thus, Claimant asserts that the correct address for service of process is

satisfied by the filing of his Interpleader Action. The Court disagrees.

K.S.A. § 60-1105(b) provides that “[w]here action is brought to enforce a lien the lien

statement may be amended by leave of the judge in furtherance of justice, except to increase the

amount claimed.” Claimant, however, never sought leave to amend. Instead, Claimant filed an

30
The Government provides an affidavit from the current owner of the property for which Claimant stated
was his address. The affiant states that Claimant has not resided at the residence or conducted business from the
property since the affiant/owner took possession in December 2021. Thus, Claimant’s November 28, 2023 mechanic’s
lien, in which he stated that the address was his, was incorrect.
31
Buchanan, 178 P.3d at 58 (finding that because the claimant “failed to strictly comply with the
requirements of K.S.A. 60-1102 by not verifying his address sufficient for service of process, the district court erred
in holding that the lien was valid.”).
32
At the hearing, Claimant provided no reason for the incorrect address.
33
K.S.A. § 60-1102(a) requires that a mechanic’s lien be filed “within four months after the date material,
equipment or supplies, used or consumer was last furnished or last labor performed under the contract.” Claimant
states in the mechanic’s lien that the last day labor was performed or materials furnished were on November 27, 2023.

-15-

44
Interpleader Action. And in the Interpleader Action, he asserted that his mechanic’s lien had

priority over other liens or encumbrances and explicitly relied on the mechanic’s lien.34 Nowhere

in the Interpleader Action did Claimant assert that the mechanic’s lien needed to be amended. In

fact, Claimant specifically and explicitly relied on the mechanic’s lien as though it were proper.

Even when confronted with the facts and evidence that the address was incorrect, Claimant never

requested that the Court allow him to amend the mechanic’s lien and never sought to provide an

amended mechanic’s lien.

Furthermore, Kansas law would prohibit the Court from allowing Claimant to amend his

mechanic’s lien. “K.S.A. 60-1105(b) does not permit the trial court to allow amendment of a

vitally defective mechanic’s lien statement after the statutory filing period has expired.”35 Here,

Claimant’s original mechanic’s lien was vitally defective because it did not comply with K.S.A.

§ 60-1102(a)(2)’s requirement of a name and address sufficient for service of process of the

claimant. In addition, the statutory filing period had long expired, and Claimant made no effort to

amend the mechanic’s lien prior to the expiration of the statutory filing period.36 As noted above,

the filing of the Interpleader Action, which contained no allegations as to an amended mechanic’s

lien, or the need to change or amend the mechanic’s lien, was insufficient to place anybody on

notice that Claimant sought to amend his original mechanic’s lien. Thus, Claimant’s Interpleader

34
Even in the Interpleader Action, Claimant does not provide his address.
35
Tradesmen Int’l, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Bus. Trust, 35 Kan. App. 2d 146, 129 P.3d 102, 106 (2006).
36
On March 29, 2024, the Government asserted that Claimant’s mechanic’s lien did not strictly comply with
the mechanic’s lien statute due to the incorrect address. This date was within the four-month statutory filing period.
Claimant could have, at that time, sought to amend the mechanic’s lien. Claimant did not, and has never sought to,
amend the mechanic’s lien but instead relies on his Interpleader Action as the “amendment.”

-16-

45
Action did not cure his original defective mechanic’s lien, and Claimant’s mechanic’s lien is

invalid because it did not strictly comply with the statutory requirements.

In sum, the Court overrules Claimant’s Objection. This Court must follow Kansas law and

its requirement of strict compliance with the mechanic’s lien statute. Accordingly, Claimant has

no valid, legal right to $50,000 of Security 1st’s escrowed funds.

B. Claimant’s and Duaglo’s Joint Motions

After the Court held a hearing on Claimant’s Objection, Claimant and Duaglo filed a Joint

Motion for Intervention by Duaglo. In this motion, Claimant and Duaglo seek the Court’s leave

to allow Duaglo to intervene in the case to claim an interest in the escrowed funds with Security

1st. The parties state that they entered into a Joint Representation Agreement and an agreement

as to the distribution of the funds. The Government opposes the motion arguing that the motion

lacks both factual and legal support, is untimely, and cannot serve as a legal basis for Duaglo’s

intervention in this proceeding.

In addition, Claimant and Duaglo jointly filed a Motion for Distribution of Funds. In this

motion, they request that the Court distribute the Security 1st escrowed funds to Claimant,

Claimant’s attorney, and Duaglo. The Government asserts that if Duaglo is not permitted to

intervene, then Duaglo has no standing to request distribution of the funds. In addition, the

Government states that the parties are not entitled to the funds because they provide no valid basis

for the amounts claimed.

-17-

46
1. Duaglo’s and Claimant’s Motion to Intervene

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) governs intervention as a matter of right, and Rule

24(b) governs permissive intervention.37

Under Rule 24(a), an applicant may intervene as a matter of right if (1) the
application is timely, (2) the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction which is the subject of the action, (3) the applicant’s interest may be
impaired or impeded, and (4) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented
by existing parties.38

Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) requires a timely motion and that the intervening party

“has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”39

Timeliness of a motion to intervene is determined by considering all the circumstances, “including

the length of time since the applicant knew of his interest in the case, prejudice to the existing

parties, prejudice to the applicant, and the existence of any unusual circumstances.”40

Duaglo and Claimant do not reference intervention under Rule 24 or whether they seek

mandatory or permissive intervention. Thus, they fail to address any of Rule 24’s requirements.

But even if they had addressed Rule 24,41 they further fail to meet any of its requirements.

37
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), (b).
38
Elliott Indus. Ltd. P’ship v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 407 F.3d 1091, 1103 (10th Cir. 2005).
39
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).
40
Elliott Indus., 407 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1250 (10th Cir.
2001)).
41
In their Reply, Duaglo and Claimant briefly contend that Duaglo is entitled to intervene as a matter of right
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). They raise this argument for the first time in the reply brief and thus the argument is
untimely.

-18-

47
As to timeliness, Duaglo knew of its interest in the case for quite some time. On December

13, 2023, Duaglo and Defendant executed an Amendment to their original contract. In this written

Amendment, Duaglo agreed to the lower re-purchase price of $155,027.04 (instead of the original

purchase price of $167,708.59) from Defendant. This Amendment also provided that the

Government would file a partial release of the judgment lien in exchange for all the funds due to

the seller being placed in escrow at Security 1st. On December 14, 2023, Duaglo conveyed the

Property to Defendant, and Defendant conveyed the Property to the new purchasers. Duaglo

received its $155,027.04. After the other costs of the sale, the remaining $74,573.37 was placed

in escrow at Security 1st.

In February 2024, the Government applied for, and received, a Writ of Garnishment to the

funds held by Security 1st. The Government provided Notice of the Garnishment on February 9,

2024. Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 3202(c) and (d) provide that an interested party has 20 days to claim

an interest, request a hearing, or move to quash. Within this 20-day time period, Claimant filed an

Objection to this Writ of Garnishment, which has been extensively discussed above.42 Duaglo did

not. Instead, Duaglo first requested intervention into the garnishment proceeding over seven

months after the Notice and three weeks after the Court held a hearing on Claimant’s Objection.

Thus, Duaglo’s request for intervention is extremely untimely and is not warranted under either

Rule 24(a) or (b).43

42
Defendant also filed an Exemption Claim.
43
The Court recognizes that Claimant attempted to assert Duaglo’s alleged right to $12,681.58 in his Second
Objection to the Writ of Continuing Garnishment on June 24, 2024. However, Claimant did not have standing to
make this request. Furthermore, as will be discussed, Duaglo has no valid legal basis to this money.

-19-

48
In addition, mandatory intervention requires the party to claim an interest relating to the

property. Although the Court recognizes that Duaglo claims an interest to the Property, it does not

claim a valid interest. The facts demonstrate that Duaglo released its interest in the Governeour

Street Property when it signed the December 13, 2023 Amendment lowering the purchase price to

$155,027.04. This amount is all Duaglo is entitled to, and Duaglo received that amount on

December 14, 2023 when it executed the statutory warranty deed and transferred the property.

Duaglo cannot now revive the original agreement between it and Defendant. Thus, Duaglo cannot

demonstrate that it has a valid interest in the Property.44 Accordingly, the Court denies Claimant’s

and Duaglo’s Joint Motion to Intervene.

2. Duaglo’s and Claimant’s Motion to Distribute

In this joint motion, Duaglo and Claimant request disbursement of the Security 1st

escrowed funds in the amount of $74,573.37. Specifically, they request $50,000 to Claimant,

$5,000 for Claimant’s attorney fees, and the remainder (approximately $19,500) to Duaglo. First,

as to the request for $5,000 in attorney fees and approximately $19,500 to Duaglo,45 there is no

basis in law or fact for these requests.46 Next, as to the requested $50,000 for Claimant, the Court

44
See, e.g., Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Bradco, Inc., 2008 WL 2066993, at *4 (D. Kan. May 14, 2008)
(stating that although Rule 24 does not explicitly take into consideration the merits of a proposed claim, the futility of
a proposed claim when determining whether intervention is appropriate is arguably “part of the inquiry under the
second element of intervention of right under rule 24(a)”).
45
Because the Court denied the Joint Motion to Intervene, Duaglo also has no standing to request
disbursement of the funds.
46
Even if the Court were to consider the original contract between Duaglo and Defendant as to the disposition
of the proceeds related to the Governeour Street Residence, that contract only provided Duaglo $12,681.55. Duaglo
now seeks to recover approximately $19,500—an increase of $7,000 with no basis in law or fact. In addition, Duaglo
and Claimant seek to obtain $5,000 in attorney fees from escrowed funds in which they have no legal right.

-20-

49
previously determined that Claimant does not have a valid mechanic’s lien, and thus he is not

entitled to this money. Accordingly, the Court denies the Joint Motion for Disbursement.

C. Defendant’s Motion for Joinder

Defendant filed a Motion for Joinder seeking to join Duaglo’s and Claimant’s Joint

Motions for Intervention and Distribution of Funds. He simply reiterates Duaglo’s and Claimant’s

contentions. He also specifically disavows any interest in the escrowed funds.47 The Court grants

Defendant’s motion to join in Duaglo’s and Claimant’s motions. However, for the reasons stated

above, the Court denies both joint motions to intervene and for distribution of funds.

Consequently, Defendant’s motion for joinder provides him no relief.

D. The Government’s Motion and Amended Motion for Order Restraining Property
and Rights to Property

On July 26, 2024, the Government filed a Motion for Order Restraining Property and

Rights to Property Available for Payment of Restitution. It requested that the Court enter an order

restraining Defendant, or any person or entity acting on his behalf, from completing any action

that would affect or diminish the marketability or value of Defendant’s real or personal property

available to pay restitution. Defendant failed to timely respond to this motion. During the hearing

on September 12, 2024, the Court noted its concerns with the overbreadth of the Government’s

motion.

In turn, the Government filed an Amended Motion for Order Restraining Property and

Rights to Property. In this motion, the Government narrowed its request minimally. The

47
Presumably, Defendant will not file any other objections to the disposition of these funds as he states to
the Court that he disclaims any interest in them.

-21-

50
Government moves the Court for an order seeking to restrain Defendant, his representatives,

agents, attorneys, associates, nominees, alter egos, and/or assignees from transferring,

encumbering, or wasting Defendant’s property or rights to property, whether held in his name, in

the name of his nominee, and/or in the name of any alter ego business, except as expressly

permitted by the Court. Defendant contends that the Government’s Amended Motion is overbroad,

lacks specific details as to what the Government seeks to restrain, and fails to state why it is

necessary.

Here, the Court entered its restitution order on May 12, 2023, in the amount of $318,647.21.

As of July 26, 2024—the most recent date for which the Government provided an update on the

amount of restitution owed—Defendant’s outstanding balance was $316,683.93. On March 26,

2024, the Government sought formal discovery from Defendant seeking financial information. In

turn, Defendant filed a Motion to Quash or Motion for Sanctions. In the Court’s Order ruling on

Defendant’s motion, the Court recognized the Government’s right to use civil discovery when

enforcing an order of restitution. The Court rejected Defendant’s assertion that the discovery was

excessive and burdensome. Thus, the Court denied Defendant’s motion on June 13, 2024.

Defendant appealed this Order to the Tenth Circuit.48 On July 23, 2024, the Court granted

Defendant’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Memorandum and Order Pending Appeal. Thus,

while this matter is on appeal, discovery cannot continue, and the Government cannot obtain

additional information as to Defendant’s financial condition and information.49

48
The Court made other rulings in this Order due to Defendant’s numerous motions.
49
The Court notes that the appeal is moving slowly as Defendant only filed his initial brief on October 26,
2024, after requesting multiple extensions of time.

-22-

51
The Government contends that to maintain the status quo and ensure that Defendant’s

property and rights to property are still available upon resolution of Defendant’s appeal, a

restraining order is necessary. The Court, however, fails to see the necessity. First, an order

restraining Defendant (and all representatives associated with him) from transferring,

encumbering, or wasting Defendant’s property does nothing to maintain the status quo as to

discovery. Discovery is simply a tool to ascertain whether Defendant has any additional assets

available for restitution. The Government seeks to go beyond the status quo. And there is already

an Order of Restitution which operates as “a lien in favor of the United States on all property and

rights to property of the person fined as if the liability of the person fined were a liability for a tax

assessed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”50 Although the Government contends that

this lien does not necessarily prevent Defendant from transferring property, the fact remains that

the lien is in place and protects the Government’s interest.

In addition, other than directing the Court to broad authority for enforcing an order of

restitution,51 the Government does not direct the Court to any cases or authority supporting the

imposition of a restraining order. Furthermore, in performing its own search, the Court found

scant caselaw addressing this issue. The Court finds the lack of legal authority significant.

Finally, the Government’s request is imprecise and overbroad. The Court recognizes that

the Government cannot provide specific information as to the property it seeks to restrain due to

its inability to obtain formal discovery. The Government, however, has some knowledge of

50
18 U.S.C. § 3613(c).
51
The Government cites to general enforcement provisions (18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C.
3202(a)) and to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

-23-

52
Defendant’s assets due to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) that was prepared in this

case on May 12, 2023. Although the Court previously found, and still finds, that the Government

is entitled to discovery as to Defendant’s assets despite the PSI, the Government is not completely

without knowledge. Furthermore, the Government seeks to not only restrain Defendant but also

his representatives, agents, attorneys, associates, nominees, alter egos, and/or assigns from

transferring, encumbering, or wasting Defendant’s property. This request is not narrowly tailored,

and the Government does not provide the Court with authority that it could restrain these

individuals. Accordingly, the Court denies the Government’s Amended Motion for Order

Restraining Property and Rights to Property Available for Payment of Restitution.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Claimant Charles Capps’s Objection to

Garnishment (entitled “Limited Appearance of Claimant Charles Capps to Object to Garnishment

and to Provide Notice of Interpleader Action”) (Doc. 174) is OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for Order Restraining

Property and Rights to Property Available for Payment of Restitution (Doc. 207) is DENIED AS

MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s Amended Motion for Order

Restraining Property and Rights to Property Available for Payment of Restitution (Doc. 211) is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charles Capps’s and Duaglo LLC’s Joint Motion for

Distribution of Funds (Doc. 215) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charles Capps’s and Duaglo’s Joint Motion to Allow

Intervention of Duaglo, LLC (Doc. 217) is DENIED.

-24-

53
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Joinder (Doc. 219) is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 5th day of November, 2024.

ERIC F. MELGREN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-25-

54
Ted E. Knopp, SC #11437
Knopp Law Group P.A.
310 W. Central Ave., Ste. 203
Wichita, KS 67202-1004
Phone: (316) 265-5882
Fax: (316) 265-5892
tknopp@knopplaw.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 6:21cr10073
)
MICHAEL R. CAPPS, )
Defendant. )
)
Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

COMES NOW Charles Capps, and moves the Court to alter or amend the Memorandum and Order

of November 5, 2024 (Doc. 229) to state the Court’s conclusions of law on the application to, and effect on,

the restitution lien at issue of 26 U.S.C.§ 7425, Revenue Ruling 68-57, and Revenue Ruling 54-154.

In Section A of Article II of the Memorandum and Order entered November 5, 2024 (Doc. 229),

under the heading of the “Claimant’s objection,” the Court expresses summarily its agreement with the

position of the Government as follows:

“1) The Government argues that its restitution lien attached to the defendant’s
[Michael Capps’] right of redemption. So when Duaglo purchased defendant’s redemption
rights, Duaglo purchased the restitution [sic] rights encumbered by the lien.

“2) The Government also asserts that the restitution lien did not merely attach to the
redemption rights but also ran with the land.

“3) Finally, the Government contends that Claimant [Charles Capps] does not have
a valid mechanic’s lien.” (Memorandum and Order II.A., Doc. 229, P. 10)

Separately, the Court has denied Duaglo the right to intervene to assert its claim to the escrowed

funds from the sale of the property owned by Defendant Michael Capps prior to foreclosure.

-1-

55
The Government never has addressed in any of its pleadings 26 U.S.C.§ 7425, Revenue Ruling 68-

57, or Revenue Ruling 54-154. When the Court merely agrees with the Government’s silent position, the

Court makes no conclusions of law concerning the application of these statutes and revenue rulings.

26 U.S.C. §7425(a)(2)

Charles Capps has argued that the Journal Entry of Foreclosure in the Kansas foreclosure action in

Sedgwick County Case Number 2022-CV-936, which resulted in the sale of the property at sheriff’s sale,

has the effect of discharging the property sold from the restitution lien under 26 U.S.C. § 7425(a)(2).

K.S.A.§60-2414(k) (the “second sale prohibition”) provides that the sheriff’s sale of property pursuant to

the Journal Entry of Judgment of Foreclosure has the effect of discharging any lien that attaches after the

filing of the Petition for Foreclosure. Under 26 U.S.C.§7425(a)(2), the sheriff’s sale of the property on June

28, 2023 has the same discharge or divestment effect on the restitution lien of the United States.

The Government has relied on K.S.A.§60-2414(k) (the “second sale prohibition”) as a bar to the

claim of Charles Capps for work performed prior to the sheriff’s sale (Doc. 178, p. 13). The Government

demonstrates its understanding of the Kansas statute, but has not addressed whether the same statute,

K.S.A.§60-2414(k), “effects the discharge or divestment of the lien of the United States “under 26 U.S.C.§

7425(a)(2).”

The absence of any discussion by the Government of the interplay between K.S.A.§60-2414(k) and

26 U.S.C.§7425(a)(2) leaves unclear the Government’s position, and the Court’s agreement with the

Government’s position does not offer any conclusions of law concerning the application of 26

U.S.C.§7425(a)(2).

-2-

56
Revenue Ruling 68-57

Charles Capps has admitted that the restitution lien of the United States attaches to the redemption

rights of Michael Capps on one or more theories. Charles Capps has argued that Revenue Ruling 68-57

protects the rights of Duaglo acquired upon redemption of the property using $74,573.37 of its own funds.

The Government has not addressed Revenue Ruling 68-57 in any of its briefing. Instead the

Government offers only a conclusory statement, unsupported by case authority or statute or administrative

ruling, that “Therefore, it follows that a federal lien encumbering a defendant owner’s rights of redemption

would also encumber the property acquired upon exercise of that right.” United States Supplemental

Briefing, p 6. (Doc. 213). This conclusory statement ignores Revenue Ruling 68-57 which “protects,” and

makes room for–subordinates the restitution lien to–the rights acquired by Duaglo in Duaglo’s arms-length,

risk-based purchase and exercise of redemption rights. This protection amounts to a subordination of the

restitution lien of the Government. The Government and the Court offer no conclusions of law concerning

the protection afforded Duaglo’s redemption by Revenue Ruling 68-57.

Revenue Ruling 54-157

The Government’s position and the Court’s agreement with the Government’s position also are silent

on the effect of Revenue Ruling 54-154 to terminate the Government’s last remaining lien on Defendant

Capps’ rights to repurchase on November 28, 2023.

If a reviewing Court were to find that 26 U.S.C.§ 7425(a)(2) discharges the property from the

restitution lien and that Revenue ruling 68-57 protects the interest of Duaglo, the Government’s lien attaches

only to the last remaining interest of Michael Capps– the right to repurchase before November 28, 2023.

Charles Capps argues Revenue Ruling 54-154 provides the Government’s lien on the sole remaining right

of Michael Capps expires when the right to purchase expires.

-3-

57
The Government has not addressed Revenue Ruling 68-57, which means the Court has made no

conclusion of law concerning the application of Revenue Ruling 68-57.

Charles Capps concedes that Michael Capps’ right to repurchase is subject to the restitution lien of

the Government. Crough v. Sheets, 1994 US Dist. Lexis 11129, 94-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) p50, 426 (Theis,

Franklin G., J)(copy attached to Supplemental Memorandum (Document 212) as Exhibit B).

However, both the Government’s 120-day right to redeem under 26 U.S.C.§ 7425 and all rights of

Michael Capps to redeem or to repurchase from Duaglo expired by November 28, 2023.

On November 27, 2023, the day before the expiration of Michael Capps’ right to repurchase, the

property had been discharged from the Government’s restitution lien and the Government’s lien on Michael

Capps’ redemption rights had been subordinated to the protected interest of Duaglo. The restitution lien has

been discharged from the property by 26 U.S.C.§ 7425(a)(2); and the restitution lien has been subordinated

to the rights of Duaglo by the “protection” of Duaglo’s purchase money interest under Revenue Ruling 68-57.

On November 29, 2023, the day following the expiration of Michael Capps’ right to repurchase the

property, all redemption rights and repurchase rights of Michael Capps have expired. The Government’s

position and the Court’s ruling that the restitution lien continues to “run with the land” after the expiration

of Michael Capps’ right to repurchase expired is contrary to the binding position of the Internal Revenue

Service in Revenue Ruling 54-154, 1954-1 C.B. 277 (copy attached to Supplemental Memorandum

(Document 212) as Exhibit C) which provides:

“Federal tax liens attach to property only to the extent of the delinquent taxpayer's interest
therein. Where a taxpayer has only an option to purchase real property at the time the
Federal tax lien arises, the lien attaches to the option and not to the real estate. Where his
rights under the option are terminable, the Government's rights, by virtue of its lien upon
the taxpayer's interest, are likewise terminable, being no greater than those of the taxpayer.
Accordingly, when the taxpayer's rights under an option terminate after the Federal tax lien
has arisen, the rights of the United States in the option also terminate, since there is no
longer any property in the option to which a lien can attach.” United States Internal
Revenue Service Rev. Rul 54-154; 19554-1 C.B. 277 (1954)(emphasis added).

-4-

58
The Government has not referenced Revenue Ruling 54-154, nor identified to the Court the ruling

of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Swan, 467 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2006), which held that

a tax lien attaches only to the option to purchase and not to the property itself. When Michael Capps’ right

to repurchase expired, his last interest in the property evaporated and the lien of the Government evaporated

with the right to purchase.

The Government may argue that the Quit Claim Deed from Michael Capps to Duaglo conveyed a

fee interest in the property. It did not. The Quit Claim Deed from Michael Capps to Duaglo conveyed to

Duaglo only the rights Michael Capps had at the time of the deed– the right to possession under K.S.A.§60-

2414(a) during the period of redemption.1 The Quit Claim Deed to Duaglo would be subject to the

foreclosure proceedings, including the sheriff’s sale and the rights of the purchaser at sheriff’s sale to a deed

in the absence of redemption. The Quit Claim Deed would not convey future ownership of the property in

the event Duaglo redeemed, because redemption had not occurred at the time of the deed.2 Duaglo’s source

of title is the exercise of the redemption right, not the Quit Claim Deed. Therefore, the Government’s interest

in the property after redemption by Duaglo is based on a lien on the redemption rights of Capps, and not

based on a fee simple interest granted by the Quit Claim Deed.

1
“The defendant owner in the meantime shall be entitled to the possession of the property.”
K.S.A. § 60-2414(a).
2
A “quitclaim deed passes only what the grantor owned at the time of its execution.”
Mosier v. Allenbaugh, 84 Kan. 361, 364, 114 P. 226, 227 (1911). The quit claim deed from Capps to Duaglo
does not convey fee title, and does not convey a contingent future interest, such as the interest acquired by
Duaglo upon redemption. Id. (Quit claim deed does not transfer interest later acquired by inheritance.)
Quoting Glover v. Condell, 163 Ill 566, 594, 45 N.E. 173. ("A quitclaim is sufficient to pass any estate which
the person executing it has at the time of such execution, but it can not affect by way of release a future
contingent interest, limited to the surviving members of a class, upon the event of the death of one of them
without living issue at the time of his death, there being no terms used in such quitclaim or release which can
be construed as referring to future interests. (Striker v. Mott, 28 N.Y. 82). In order to create an assignment
of future interests and contingencies, 'there must be on the face of the instrument expressly, or collected from
its provisions by necessary implication, language of present transfer directly applying to the future as well
as to the existing property, or else language importing a present contract or agreement between the parties
to sell or assign the future property.' (3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1290)." Mosier, 84 Kan. at 364.

-5-

59
Neither the absence of Duaglo nor alleged weakness in the mechanic’s lien claim of Charles Capps is
grounds for granting the escrowed funds to the Government.

This Court must determine the Government’s rights to the escrowed funds based on the strength of

the Government’s claim and not based on the absence of Duaglo from the proceedings or based on the

Court’s ruling that the mechanic’s lien of Charles Capps was not properly filed.

"[The] [r]ight to recover from the fund must be based on the strength of a claimant's title and
not on the weakness of the title of another claimant. As the United States stands in the shoes
of the contractor-taxpayer and can have no greater rights to the fund than he [the taxpayer]
has, the tax claim may be asserted only against that portion of the fund remaining after the
satisfaction of the claims for labor and materials.” United States v. Chapman, 281 F.2d 862,
867 (10th Cir. 1960)(applying Oklahoma property rights laws).

Kansas takes the same position. The Government must prove its entitlement to the funds, not merely

allege the weakness in the claims of others. Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 543, 438 P.2d 957, 966-67

(1968)(citing Smith v. Harris, 181 Kan.. 237, 250, 311 P.2d 325).

CONCLUSION

Because the Government has offered no position on these authorities asserted by Charles Capps, the

Court should make findings of fact and conclusions of law to clarify for appeal the manner in which the

restitution lien of the Government continued as a lien on the property: i) after the confirmation of sheriff’s

sale in the foreclosure case; ii) despite the subordination of the restitution lien to the interest of Duaglo under

Revenue Ruling 68-57; and despite the attachment of the lien only to the expired right to repurchase and not

to the property under Revenue Ruling 54-154.

Respectfully submitted,

KNOPP LAW GROUP P.A.

By: /s/ Ted E. Knopp
Ted E. Knopp, SC #11437
Attorney for Defendant

-6-

60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel of record
via the Court’s E-filing system on the date this document was filed.

/s/ Ted E. Knopp
Ted E. Knopp, SC #11437

-7-

61
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(WICHITA DOCKET)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plainti;, ) Case No. 6:21-cr-10073-EFM
)
v. )
)
MICHAEL R. CAPPS, )
)
Defendant, )
_______________________________________ )

NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE is hereby given that Michael R. Capps, Defendant in the above-named case,

hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the

Memorandum and Order (Doc. 229) entered in this action on the 5th day of November,

2024.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________________
Michael R. Capps, pro se
3804 S 28th West Ave
Tulsa, OK 74107
Telephone: (316) 371-3768
Email: cappsm@me.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certiﬁed that on December 31, 2024, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was ﬁled and served electronically pursuant to the CM/ECF system on all
counsel or record.

_________________________________________
Michael R. Capps, pro se

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.ksd.138084.240.1.pdf
Size: 571,666 bytes
SHA-256: 09063b66bd79d554922367d4390da19dc1bbda09eefc4a27695fd4bcc86c201c
Our copy: gov.uscourts.ksd.138084.240.1.pdf
Original: archive.org