United States District Court

Eastern District of Michigan

Southern Division

United States of America,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-CR-20382

v. Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford

D-1 Paul Nicoletti,

 

Defendant.

/

Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s 

Motion to Compel Production of Victim Impact Statements 

and for an Accounting as to Restitution Amount (ECF No. 223) 

The United States of America, by its undersigned counsel, respectfully 

requests that the Court deny Defendant Nicoletti’s Motion to Compel Production 

of Victim Impact Statements and for an Accounting as to Restitution Amount 

(ECF No. 223) for the reasons stated in the accompanying brief, primarily:

1. There is no case or controversy pending before this Court to which “victim 

impact statements” would be relevant inasmuch as the defendant was 

sentenced on January 30, 2020 and agreed to the restitution amount 

ultimately appearing in the judgement, and, despite numerous challenges 

based on ability to pay, Nicoletti has never challenged the amount (ECF 179, 

PageID. 2884-2885: Sentencing Transcript; ECF 168, PageID.2345: 

Judgment; ECF 174, PageID. 2770-2775: Motion to Amend Order of 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 224, PageID.3476 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 5
2

Restitution; ECF 185, PageID. 3166-3176: Motion for Reconsideration; ECF 

214, PageID.3440-3443: Amended Judgment);

2. There were no “victim impact statements” from Fifth Third Bank or its 

insurers named as the victim/recipients of restitution which Nicoletti seeks 

an order to compel, but rather, a schedule of losses, recoveries from the sale 

of properties and insurance payments, which was furnished to the defense 

prior to sentencing (Attachment One: Email with Attachment);

3. The “accounting” that Nicoletti seeks as to his restitution balance is readily 

obtainable from this Court’s Clerk’s Office, has been obtained by the 

government and is being furnished to Nicoletti (See, Attachment Two: 

Restitution Balance).

WHEREFORE, the United States of America respectfully requests that the 

Court deny Defendant Nicoletti’s Motion to Compel as Moot.

Respectfully submitted,

Saima S. Mohsin

Acting United States Attorney

s/Craig A. Weier

Craig A. Weier (P33261)

Assistant United States Attorney

Eastern District of Michigan

211 W. Fort St., Suite 2001

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 226-9678

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 224, PageID.3477 Filed 06/10/21 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

Eastern District of Michigan

Southern Division

United States of America,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-CR-20382

v. Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford

D-1 Paul Nicoletti,

 

Defendant.

/

Government’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s 

Motion to Compel Production of Victim Impact Statements 

and for an Accounting as to Restitution Amount (ECF No. 223) 

Nicoletti seeks an order compelling something that does not exist (“victim 

impact statements” from Fifth Third Bank and its insurers), and information that is 

readily available from this Court’s Clerk’s Office (an “accounting as to restitution 

amount” so as to determine his balance), all where there is no case or controversy 

pending before this Court. The motion should be denied.

First, Nicoletti stipulated to the restitution amount at the time of sentencing.1

(ECF 179, PageID. 2884-2885: Sentencing Transcript). There is nothing 

pending before the court challenging the amount, and no post-judgment litigation 

1 In the course of preparing this response, an arithmetic error was discovered in the 

presentence report and repeated in the judgment, which will be the subject of a 

subsequent motion to correct by the government. It reduces the amount Nicoletti

owes, but not significantly.

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 224, PageID.3478 Filed 06/10/21 Page 3 of 5
2

did either, despite Nicoletti’s repeated insistence that the Court set a payment 

schedule in the judgment, eventually resulting in the entry of the amended 

judgment he sought. (See ECF 168, PageID.2345: Judgment; ECF 174, PageID. 

2770-2775: Motion to Amend Order of Restitution; ECF 185, PageID. 3166-3176: 

Motion for Reconsideration; ECF 214, PageID.3440-3443: Amended Judgment). 

Thus, there is no open case or controversy to which “victim impact statements” 

would have any relevance. 

Second, no “victim impact statements” of Fifth Third Bank or its insurers, to 

whom restitution is to be paid according to the judgment, exist, so there is nothing 

to compel. Rather, the restitution figures contained in the Presentence Report and 

transposed into the judgment were provided by Fifth Third Bank counsel, which 

was provided to Nicoletti’s sentencing counsel well before the sentencing date. 

(Attachment One: January 3, 2020 Email to Paul Stablein with Attached Chart 

from Fifth Third Counsel). Thus, Nicoletti is well aware of the basis for the 

amount of restitution he is ordered to pay, had ample opportunity to challenge it, 

but decided not to. 

Lastly, the information Nicoletti seeks pertaining to his restitution balance 

(taking into consideration that others are also obligated to pay into this fund) is 

readily available at the office of the Clerk of the Court. Had Nicoletti complied 

with E.D. Mich. LR Rule 7.1(a)(1) and sought the government’s concurrence in 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 224, PageID.3479 Filed 06/10/21 Page 4 of 5
3

the relief, he would have been directed to the Clerk’s Office or would have been 

provided with the information by the government after it obtained it from the 

Clerk’s Office. For Nicoletti’s convenience, the information he asks the Court to 

compel is attached here as Attachment Two. Thus, Nicoletti’s motion to compel 

this information is moot. 

For all of these reasons, then, Nicoletti’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 223) 

should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Saima S. Mohsin

Acting United States Attorney

s/Craig A. Weier

Craig A. Weier (P33261)

Assistant United States Attorney

Eastern District of Michigan

211 W. Fort St., Suite 2001

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313.226.9678

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on June 10, 2021, I sent the foregoing document with 

attachments to the defendant by email to: pauljnicoletti@gmail.com, and will follow 

this notification by sending the same, by United States Mail, to: 7474 Port Austin 

Road, Caseville, MI 48725

s/Craig A. Weier 

Craig A. Weier (P33261)

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 224, PageID.3480 Filed 06/10/21 Page 5 of 5