Source: https://openjurist.org/112/f3d/606/united-states-v-berardini
Timestamp: 2019-12-16 03:03:37
Document Index: 743299481

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3583', '§ 3663', '§ 3613', '§ 207', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 207', '§ 3663', '§ 3663', '§ 205', '§ 3572', '§ 207', '§ 3583', '§ 3583', '§ 3583', '§ 3663', '§ 3663', '§ 205', '§ 3663', '§ 3663', '§ 3611', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3613', '§ 3663', '§ 3583', '§ 3583']

112 F3d 606 United States v. Berardini | OpenJurist
112 F. 3d 606 - United States v. Berardini
112 F3d 606 United States v. Berardini
112 F.3d 606
Brian BERARDINI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 946, Docket 96-1421.
At Berardini's sentencing hearing, the government stated that it had been able to locate the persons to whom Berardini made sales totaling $11,791 and that it "kn[e]w the names, addresses, et cetera, of every one of the victims that went into the thirty-nine thousand some odd dollar figure through the FBI data bases." (Sentencing Transcript, May 7, 1996 ("Tr."), 15.) The government stated that although it had been able to locate the victims whose losses totaled $11,791, "[t]he others ... are many elderly victims," and "[m]any of those people died, gone [sic ] into nursing homes, and things of that nature and simply can't be located at this point." (Id.)
Judgment at 3 (emphasis in original). The Judgment lists by name the 20 persons to whom restitution in specified amounts, totaling $11,791, must be made, and it provides that the "[p]ayments of restitution are to be made to ... the payee(s)," rather than to the United States Attorney. Id. at 4.
On appeal, Berardini contends principally that the district court erred in ordering restitution of more than the $11,791 lost by the 20 victims who have been located by the government. In a letter brief submitted following the District Court Clarification, Berardini concedes that "[t]here is no question that the government will be able to file a lien on behalf of the victim(s) to whom this money is owed." (Berardini letter brief at 4.) But he argues that since the government itself was not a victim of the offense and hence is not entitled to restitutionary payment in its own behalf, and since there is little likelihood that all of Berardini's victims, who have not been located since 1992-1993, will be found in the future, "[t]he question then arises, to whom does the Appellant pay the balance of $27,480.00 of restitution owed in order to discharge his obligation, if the District Court's Restitution Order is allowed to stand." (Id.) Though this question is not without substance, we conclude that the district court will appropriately be able to answer it if and when the problem arises.
A sentencing court's order of restitution is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Soto, 47 F.3d 546, 550 (2d Cir.1995); United States v. Lavin, 27 F.3d 40, 42 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 976, 115 S.Ct. 453, 130 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994). Given Berardini's acknowledgement that he grossed $39,271 in the unlawful scheme, and given the identification of the 62 victims whose losses totaled that sum, we see no theoretical error or abuse of discretion in the district court's ordering restitution in that amount to the identified victims. The problem that may arise is a practical one when restitution is to be made to victims who, though identified, cannot be located. We believe the provisions of the 1994 Criminal Code applicable to Berardini, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (1994); id. §§ 3663(h)(1) and (2) (1994) (current versions at id. §§ 3613(f) (1996) and 3664(m)(1)(B) (1996), respectively, see Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132 ("AEDPA") §§ 207(c)(3), 206(a), 110 Stat. 1214, 1239, 1235); and 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a) (1994) (current version at id. § 3613(c) (1996), see AEDPA § 207(c)(3), 110 Stat. 1214, 1239), provide the court with the authority needed to resolve this problem.
Preliminarily, we note that although there is some suggestion in the District Court Clarification that Berardini might make restitutionary payments to the Clerk of the Court for some 20 years, no such requirement was authorized by the Code or imposed in the sentence. The applicable version of § 3663(f) provided that when an order required restitution within a specified period or in specified installments, "[t]he end of such period or the last such installment shall not be later than ... five years after the end of the term of imprisonment imposed." 18 U.S.C. § 3663(f)(2) (1994) (repealed by AEDPA § 205(a)(2), 110 Stat. 1214, 1230; see 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(2) (1996), AEDPA § 207(b), 110 Stat. 1214, 1236-37). The sentence in this case does not violate that provision because the oral sentence, which made the $39,271 payment due immediately and stayed that requirement without specifying the duration of the stay with respect to the balance due in excess of the monthly payments, was supplemented by the written Judgment, which specifies that the $39,271 total is to be paid at least three months prior to the expiration of Berardini's three-year term of supervised release. Thus, the oral sentence and the Judgment together make clear that, in addition to the payments of $300 per month during the term of supervised release, Berardini will be required to make a "balloon" payment so that by three months prior to the expiration of that term, he will have paid a total of $39,271. Although, as discussed below, Berardini's assets may remain vulnerable to civil attachment, there is no requirement in the sentence that he make payments after the end of his supervised-release period.
In response to such an application, which we assume would be made prior to the due date of the balloon payment, and hence prior to the end of the supervised-release period, the court could exercise its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) to modify the terms of supervised release. Under that section, after consideration of the pertinent sentencing factors, the court could, for example, terminate Berardini's supervised release and remit his obligation to make further restitution. See id. § 3583(e)(1) (court may "terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release"). Alternatively, the court could "modify ... the conditions of supervised release." Id. § 3583(e)(2). Under this provision, for example, if the court learns that a given victim is deceased, it could order that the restitution be made to the victim's estate. See id. § 3663(c) (1994) (current version at id. § 3663(a)(1)(A) (1996), see AEDPA § 205(a)(1), 110 Stat. 1214, 1229). Or it could order that Berardini make his balloon payment to the government as trustee for the as-yet-unlocated victims. Ordering that the payment be made to the government as trustee would not increase Berardini's punishment; it would merely introduce an intermediary to which Berardini is required to make the already scheduled payment.
Assuming that the court orders Berardini to make the balloon payment to the government as trustee for the as-yet-unlocated victims, various sequences might follow. First, if Berardini does not make the entire required balloon payment to the government, he will not have complied with the conditions of his supervised release, and the government may move the court to punish him. Regardless of how the court might rule on such an application, the victims who are entitled to restitution would, unless the court orders otherwise, retain their rights to be paid. Section 3663 provides that a restitution order may be enforced "by a victim named in the order to receive the restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action." 18 U.S.C. § 3663(h)(2) (1994). An unpaid money judgment in a civil action remains in effect for 20 years. See N.Y.C.P.L.R. 211(b) (McKinney 1990) ("money judgment is presumed to be paid and satisfied after the expiration of twenty years from the time when the party recovering it was first entitled to enforce it"); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a) (federal judgments to be enforced in accordance with the practice and procedures of the state in which the district court sits). Further, as Berardini concedes, the government may file a lien on behalf of the victims to secure Berardini's obligation to make restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(h)(1) (1994) (an order of restitution may be enforced by the government "in the manner provided for the collection and payment of fines in subchapter B of chapter 229 of this title [i.e., 18 U.S.C. §§ 3611-3615]"); id. § 3613 (1994) (a fine is a lien in favor of the United States, which continues until the liability is "satisfied, remitted, or set aside," id. § 3613(a) (1994), or until it becomes unenforceable by the passage of 20 years from the date of the judgment or by the death of the defendant, see id. § 3613(b) (1994)). We assume that the government has filed, or will file, a lien on behalf of the persons entitled to restitution, as it advised the district court is its normal practice, see District Court Clarification at 4. Thus, unless sooner satisfied, remitted, or set aside, the lien filed by the government would remain effective until 20 years after the judgment; at the 20-year mark, by operation of law, that lien would become unenforceable. We note that the 20-year period covered by the government's lien may not precisely match the 20-year period during which the victims have the right to enforce the restitution order as a civil judgment, for the former period normally begins upon entry of the judgment of conviction, whereas the latter period begins at the time the victims gain the right to enforce the judgment. Since the balloon payment is not due until three months before the end of the supervised-release period (which presumably began in late 1996), the rights of the 42 as-yet-unlocated victims to collect have not yet ripened.
Finally, if Berardini makes the balloon payment to the government as trustee, and if all or any portion of that money is not claimed by the victims, the question will arise as to what is to be done with the unclaimed money. Insofar as Berardini might seek to have unclaimed restitutionary payments being held by the government repaid to him at some time during the 20-year period following his payment, it is not clear that the court would have the authority to order such a repayment. Although a lien filed by the government may presumably be remitted by the court at any time prior to the expiration of the 20-year period specified in § 3613(b), see 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a) (1994)--(we note that such a lien would, by hypothesis, already have been extinguished because Berardini's debt would have been satisfied)--it may well be that the rights of the victims to seek satisfaction directly by enforcing the restitution order in the manner of "a judgment in a civil action," id. § 3663(h)(2) (1994), cannot be so extinguished after the end of Berardini's supervised-release period, for the court's power under § 3583(e) to reduce or modify the terms of supervised release exists "at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) (emphasis added). We leave consideration of this question to the district court in the first instance, if Berardini makes such an application and if the court is inclined to grant it.
Berardini's additional contention that the government "failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that restitution is owed to" the unlocated victims, and that "[t]he government must at least be able to come forward and state that they have spoken to an individual and the individual has confirmed that he has been the victim of a fraudulent conspiracy" in order to prove that any unlocated individuals were victimized (Berardini letter brief at 5), is meritless. Berardini pleaded guilty to the charges against him; no challenge has been made to the acceptance of his plea. In his plea agreement, Berardini acknowledged that he "made at least 68 sales knowing that the pitches he used to obtain each sale were, at times, false, and at other times, misleading," and that the court "may require that restitution of approximately $39,271 be paid." Given the court's power to resolve the practical problems that may arise in the future, as discussed in Part II.A. above, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that a total of $39,271 in restitution be paid to the 62 fraud victims whom the government identified by name.