Crime Victims’ Rights Report 2016 

Summary – uscourts.gov

This is the 12th annual report to Congress on crime victims' rights under§ 104(a) of the 

Justice for All Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-405. Section 104(a) requires the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts (AO) to report "the number of times that a right established in 

Chapter 237 of title 18, United States Code, is asserted in a criminal case and the relief requested 

is denied and, with respect to each such denial, the reason for such denial, as well as the number 

of times a mandamus action is brought pursuant to Chapter 237 of title 18, and the result 

reached." Title I of the Justice for All Act of 2004 is commonly referred to as the Crime Victims' 

Rights Act (CVRA) and is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771.

During fiscal year 2016, more than 59,000 criminal cases were filed in the federal trial 

courts, involving more than 77,000 defendants. Last year, the AO received reports from the 

appellate courts on four mandamus actions brought per the provisions of the CVRA and 

identified six district court cases that meet the statute's reporting criteria. Summaries of those 

mandamus and trial court actions follow, including the reasons provided for the decisions in each 

of the cases. Related cases are combined into one summary.

United States v. Binkholder, 832 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2016). Defendant pled guilty to four 

counts of wire fraud. The district court found that a person identified as M.U. had been complicit 

in defendant's scheme and was not a victim pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, then 

denied M.U.'s request for victim status under the CVRA. The United States Court of Appeals for 

the Eighth Circuit granted M.U.'s petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering the district court to 

declare M.U. a victim under the CVRA. Thereafter, when making loss calculations during 

sentencing, the district court included M.U.'s investment. Defendant appealed. The Eighth

Circuit reversed and remanded for a determination of M.U.'s victim status under the Sentencing 

Guidelines. Being a victim under the CVRA does not per se establish that one also is a victim 

under the Sentencing Guidelines, as the two definitions of victim are "similar" but "not 

necessarily coextensive." The CVRA addresses the victim's rights and restitution, whereas the 

Sentencing Guidelines address the victim's losses associated with the offense and the appropriate 

penalty. However, the appeals court upheld the amount of restitution defendant was ordered to 

pay M.U., as the differences between this amount and previous estimates of M.U.'s losses did not 

establish plain error.

In re Wallace, 649 F. App'x 298 (4th Cir. 2016) (mem. op.). After petitioner Wallace 

filed a civil action asserting tortious interference with contract, he sought to stay his action to 

obtain counsel. The district court order granting the request noted that other courts had 

sanctioned petitioner for his filings and that having counsel might clarify his complaint.

Petitioner moved to vacate this order because of its reference to prior sanctions, to disqualify the
district judge due to bias, and to continue the stay of proceedings. In a petition for a writ of 

mandamus, petitioner argued that he is a crime victim under the CVRA. The United States Court 

of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the petition, finding that petitioner is not a crime 

victim, but "is, instead, a civil plaintiff seeking to challenge orders entered in his case." The 

appeals court thus had no jurisdiction under the CVRA to review the district court's orders.

In re de Henriquez, l:04-cr-00114-RBW-0l (D.C. Cir. Oct. 16, 2015). The leader of a 

Colombian paramilitary organization pled guilty to drug climes. Neither the indictment nor the 

statement of facts in the plea agreement mentioned violence. The family of Julio Henliquez 

sought victim status under the CVRA, arguing that defendant had killed Henriquez to further a 

drug conspiracy. The district court denied their motion, finding they had not shown that the 

conspiracy was the direct and proximate cause of Henriquez's death. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the family's petition for a writ of mandamus. The CVRA 

allows victims to participate in proceedings even when no formal charges have been filed, 

indicating "that Congress intended courts to look beyond the four corners of an indictment or

plea agreement." Here, both logic and court materials from Colombia supported the inference

that defendant's organization used violence, and although Henliquez's death may have had more 

than one cause, "a 'but-for' cause" may have been his leadership of a group seeking to end coca 

production in the region defendant's organization controlled. Although a "satisfactory nexus" 

must exist between a charged offense and victim status, requiring "direct traceability between, 

say, the importation of a single coca plant and the eventual murder of Henriquez is a 

prohibitively onerous burden." Instead, the CVRA requires a determination of whether the 

murder was sufficiently connected to the overall conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 

cocaine for unlawful importation into the United States. The appeals court, noting that the district 

court had "done much to the benefit of the petitioners" by permitting their limited participation in 

the proceedings, directed that court to reconsider their motion to be recognized as victims under 

the CVRA.

United States v. Vergez, No. 5:l 5-cr-00086-LSC-HGD-l, 2016 WL 695709 (N.D. Ala. 

Feb. 22, 2016). Defendant pled guilty to making false statements and taking actions constituting 

a conflict of interest while serving as a U.S. Army colonel responsible for procurement matters. 

Three individuals claiming to be victims of the conflict of interest crime and three corporations 

claiming to be victims of all of defendant's crimes moved for leave to appear and be heard at 

sentencing. The district court found that none of the movants were victims under the CVRA and 

denied their requests. The individuals, who had worked for the same helicopter manufacturing 

firm, complained that they had lost their jobs in retaliation for cooperating with the investigation 

of defendant, but they did not allege that defendant had any role in or awareness of their 

employment termination. Thus, any harm they experienced was not closely related to the 

offenses to which defendant pled guilty. The corporations maintained that they had been

deprived of the ability to compete for business with the Army "on a level playing field," but none 

of defendant's actions forming the basis of his crimes caused the loss of business opportunities
cited. The corporations could not say that but for defendant's conduct, the Army would have 

awarded contracts to them, so they were not directly and proximately harmed by the offenses.

In re Korff, No. 16-cv-12984, 2016 WL 4537815 {E.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2016) (slip

opinion). After a medical doctor pled guilty to malfeasance in treating patients, the district court 

established a restitution plan. Forty-three persons who had filed civil litigation against defendant 

and other alleged tortfeasors in state court petitioned the district court under the CVRA to change 

its restitution plan either by ordering Medicare and other medical expense lien holders to waive 

petitioners' obligation to repay them from the civil suit settlement award or by declaring any 

required payments from the settlement award to be "out-of-pocket" expenses, which would allow 

petitioners to recoup these payments from the restitution fund. The district court dismissed the 

petition, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims requiring interpretation of 

the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act and that petitioners did not 

establish any violation of their rights under the CVRA. When a case involves multiple crime 

victims, the CVRA directs the court to avoid complexity or delay, and "the Court has discretion 

to order less than full restitution and to accord fewer than all of the rights listed." More than 550 

victims were identified in this case, and the relief petitioners sought would give them a 

disproportionately large share of the restitution fund as reimbursement for "losses" they never 

had to pay or for which the state court settlement compensated them, thereby reducing the 

amount available for victims who did not file state court actions.

United States v. Womack, Case No. 13-00441-01-CR-W-GAF, 2016 WL 1417867 (W.D.

Mo. Mar. 17, 2016). Defendant moved to dismiss an indictment against her on the grounds that 

the government violated her rights under the Due Process Clause and CVRA when it used her 

status as a victim in another case to interview defendant without counsel present and got her to 

incriminate herself. Defendant also argued that her victim's rights were abused because her 

former employee, Brandy Wheeler, was ordered to pay defendant only $150 per month in 

restitution, the government had not attempted to obtain or liquidate assets Wheeler had 

purchased with money embezzled from defendant, and defendant's civil tax case had been put on 

hold. The district court denied the motion. The magistrate judge had found that defendant was 

not a victim under the CVRA in the other case, that the restitution amount was appropriate, and 

that putting defendant's tax case on hold was neither unreasonable nor a violation of due process. 

The district court declined "defendant's invitation to dismiss the charges against her to counter 

the purported message to other crime victims" that cooperating with the government might 

endanger their own rights, for recommending that defendant's statements made during the 

interview be suppressed "appears to be a sufficient sanction" for violating her rights.

Jordan v. Dep't of Justice, 173 F. Supp. 3d 44 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Plaintiff sought 

enforcement of her rights under the CVRA, asserting she was a victim of crimes committed by 

her former husband, Raymond Mirra, Jr. The district court dismissed the petition. Plaintiff 

qualified as a victim of Mirra's financial frauds pursuant to the CVRA, but even if plaintiffs
rights had attached when the government learned of possible crimes and began investigating 

Mirra, the government fulfilled its CVRA obligations to plaintiff when it reasonably conferred 

with her by meeting with her counsel, reviewed documents she gave prosecutors, listened to her 

allegations, did not unduly delay proceedings, and gave her the dignity and respect due crime 

victims. The CVRA did not entitle plaintiff to obtain documents and info1mation related to 

government investigations or to have additional meetings with prosecutors. The right to confer 

did not bestow a right to direct the prosecution or the "manner, timing, or quantity of conferrals," 

and plaintiff acknowledged that "obligations to CVRA victims are 'truncated"' during the 

investigative stage. Neither declining to meet with plaintiff again after the prosecution

considered her allegations many times nor deciding against filing an indictment violated her right 

to be treated with dignity and respect. Plaintiff did not qualify as a victim under the CVRA of 

Mirra's alleged healthcare frauds, for even if Mirra had used plaintiffs funds to finance these 

crimes, the financial frauds-not the healthcare frauds-were what harmed her.

In re Jordan, 16-2584 (2d Cir. Oct. 26, 2016). Petitioner Jordan, plaintiff in the case 

described in the preceding paragraph, sought a writ of mandamus from the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771, to direct the district court to 

grant her victim's rights under the CVRA. The court held that the government had satisfied the 

requirements of the CVRA regarding the financial frauds allegedly committed against petitioner 

when it met with her counsel, took documents from petitioner and counsel, and spoke to 

petitioner on the telephone. The CVRA provides a "reasonable right to confer," not "an 

unfettered right to meet with law enforcement." Petitioner did not show she was a victim of the 

alleged healthcare frauds, which were perpetrated against third parties.

United States v. Whipple. 155 F. Supp. 321 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). Defendant pled guilty to 

financial institution fraud. Bank customers alleging that defendant had stolen their identities 

moved before sentencing to be declared crime victims under the CVRA. The district court denied 

the motion without deciding on the merits of the claims, for even after reviewing "voluminous" 

exhibits, it could not decide this issue without multiple hearings and additional evidence, which 

would delay sentencing proceedings in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.

Moreover, if the customers were found to be crime victims, the court was unsure that it could 

reasonably assess appropriate restitution when the record did not show whether and to what 

extent the alleged damage to the customers' credit worthiness directly resulted from the financial 

institution fraud. The customers raised the same issues in a civil action in state court, which they 

conceded "is the proper venue for determination of the amount of restitution."

United States v. Christian Keller & John Grav, No. CR 15-00428 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 

2016). Defendants pled guilty to conspiracy and securities fraud committed while using 

confidential information about Rovi Corporation. Rovi sought restitution for attorney's fees 

incurred while responding to subpoenas from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC). The district court denied the request for lack of "a sufficient factual basis to find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the SEC investigation has the requisite nexus to a criminal 

case." Nothing established that the SEC and the U.S. attorney's office had engaged in a joint 

investigation. Moreover, no evidence was provided about the nature of the SEC's investigation, 

so the court could not determine whether it had resulted directly from the defendants' crimes.