28 U.S.C. § 3011
Assessment of surcharge on a debt
Section effective 180 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Schueler v. Roman Asphalt Corp., 827 F. Supp. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
Schueler v. Roman Asphalt Corp., 827 F. Supp. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “§ 3011 which provides in debt collection suits by the United States for a surcharge of ten per cent (10%) of the amount of the debt involved where other measures of recompense for *255 governmental expenses are not applicable.”
United States v. James B. Sackett & Gwendolyn Sackett, 114 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 1997). “Defendants also challenge the district court’s denial of their motion to reconsider and the award of attorney fees or, in the alternative, a surcharge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3011 to plaintiff. We vacate the surcharge, and affirm the district court’s judgment in all other…”
United States v. Smith, 862 F. Supp. 257 (D. Haw. 1994). “The United States also alleges that Smith is liable for a ten percent surcharge on the debt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3011 . Defendant has cross-moved for summary judgment, claiming that the United States is barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches from…”
In Re Outdoor Sports Headquarters, Inc., 161 B.R. 414 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1993). “The SBA has also asserted that it is entitled to a ten percent surcharge under 28 U.S.C. § 3011 , a provision of the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act.”
Off. of Thrift Supervision v. Paul, 985 F. Supp. 1465 (S.D. Fla. 1997). “§ 1961 , and a ten percent surcharge to cover the cost of the OTS’s collection pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3011 . (OTS *1469 Order No. AP 93-104; Complaint at 8-9).”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Amx, Int'l, Inc., William B. Clark, 7 F.3d 71 (5th Cir. 1993). “For these reasons, the additional issues Clark attempts to advance are not properly before this Court.”
Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 600 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “” 28 U.S.C. § 3011 (a). After the Alabama district court denied Edison’s motion to intervene to challenge the surcharge, Edison filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a writ of mandamus that would direct the Attorney General to remit…”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States Postal Serv., 844 F.3d 260 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “The letter stated, inter alia, that, upon further consideration, the government has determined that it is not in fact entitled to a surcharge under 28 U.S.C. § 3011 (a) where, as here, it has not sought the pre- or post-judgment remedies referenced in § 3011(a).”
United States v. Peoples Household Furnishings, Inc., Edward J. Holland, Jr., 75 F.3d 252 (6th Cir. 1996). “The complaint prayed for judgment in that amount, plus interest and a 10 percent surcharge under 28 U.S.C. § 3011 . Mr. Holland moved for dismissal under Mich.”
United States v. Richard Goyette, 446 F. App'x 718 (5th Cir. 2011). “Essentially, he argues that: (1) he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing at which he can challenge the amount of restitution imposed as a part of his sentence; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by imposing a 10% surcharge on the restitution amount under 28 U.S.C.…”
United States v. Alphagraphics Franchising, Inc., 973 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1992). “It entered judgment for the SBA in the amount of $137,500: $125,000 under the guaranty plus a 10% surcharge ($12,500) under 28 U.S.C. § 3011 . Alpha-graphics appealed.”
United States v. Rostoff, 164 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 1999). “After the four-day trial, the court initially entered judgment against each brother for the unpaid balance of the $650,000 restitution order, plus a ten percent surcharge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3011 (a). After reconsidering the question of Steven Rostoffs ability to have paid…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.