David Beulke pleaded guilty to embezzling from his employer, the 3M Corporation. Beulke was sentenced to fifty-one months in prison and ordered to pay the amount he embezzled—$5,610,563.00—in restitution. Beulke paid all but $1,250,418 of this amount. The US government requested permission to enforce the restitution order against Beulke’s 401(k) account and 3M pension plan. Beulke contested this request and contended that some of his deposits into the 401(k) occurred prior to his embezzlement scheme and that his wife, who sued him for divorce after he was sentenced, was entitled to half the 401(k) and a portion of the pension plan as part of the forthcoming property division in the divorce action. How should the district court decide this case? What values should the court emphasize, specifically, the right of the creditor to obtain restitution or the protection of assets earned as a result of years of work and potentially belonging, in part, to a third party?