a civil judgment under Federal law or State law, including the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990. 518 F.3d at 286 (internal brackets and quotations omitted). The installment schedule in Ekong did not preclude the Government from “aggressively” enforcing a victim restitution order. Id. This Court concludes that the analysis in Ekong applies here — the Government may enforce the restitution still owed by Quam to the victims in this case. The language of this Court’s Judgment does not prohibit the Government from otherwise enforcing victim restitution through the proposed garnishment process. The Judgment provides for a “[l]ump sum payment of $3,283,680.95 due immediately” with “payments of at least $100 per month.” (See Judgment 5); see also Lawrence, 538 F.Supp.2d at 1192 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Court’s restitution order does
holding that  1322c2 refers to the final payment under the original mortgage schedule and not the most recent payment holding the government was within its rights to garnish wages where there was a minimum monthly payment schedule and restitution was due in full immediately holding defendant entitled to full restitution hearing where he requested it at sentencing holding the district court must fashion a payment schedule designating a specific percentage of the prisoners monthly earnings to go toward his restitution obligation holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable