Opinion ID: 6316806
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Apportionment Between WebBank and Wells Fargo

Text: For the first time on appeal, Williams challenges the district court’s apportioning $210,000 of the total restitution to Wells Fargo. He correctly notes that the Plea Agreement doesn’t identify by name any entities that qualify as a victim under the 18 Appellate Case: 19-1229 Document: 010110565060 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 19 MVRA. But he acknowledges that the PSR recommended apportioning the total restitution between two MVRA victims: WebBank and Wells Fargo. And he concedes that he didn’t object to the PSR’s recommendation. Even so, Williams maintains that Wells Fargo is not a victim under the MVRA. He must meet the plain-error standard to prevail on this argument. But he faces an even more difficult challenge than he did on the total-restitution issue. Once he’s lost on his total-restitution issue, he can no longer maintain that the total restitution of $1,146,828.28 isn’t owed at least to WebBank. As the government puts it, “Williams’[s] substantial rights are undiminished, given that he agreed to restitution of $1.15 million in his Plea Agreement, all of which would have been payable to WebBank if not for its settlement with Wells Fargo.” Appellee’s Answer Br. at 12. And that leaves him in an untenable spot under a plain-error analysis. Though he faces problems on all four prongs of that analysis, we again cut to the easiest ones on which to affirm—the second and third. As for the second prong, Williams hasn’t cited a case ruling that a defendant can complain about apportionment of an enforceable total amount of restitution. Nor have we located any authority on that point. Accordingly, Williams hasn’t shown that his alleged error is plain. As for the third prong, Williams hasn’t shown that the district court’s apportionment of his owed restitution substantially prejudiced him. See United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 331–32 (5th Cir. 2005) (ruling that the alleged mistaken award of restitution to the incorrect recipient didn’t affect the defendant’s substantial rights, “because [the defendant] would be required to pay the same amount of restitution, 19 Appellate Case: 19-1229 Document: 010110565060 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 20 regardless of which entity receives it”); United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 353 (5th Cir. 2008) (ruling that any error in imposing a fine instead of restitution didn’t affect the defendant’s substantial rights, because the fine was about the same as the restitution the court could have awarded). Every dollar of restitution Williams pays will count in his favor. His total-restitution obligation will neither rise nor fall depending on whether his case involves one victim or two. Any issue from the apportionment would be an issue between Wells Fargo and WebBank, and they have none.