Opinion ID: 4843446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restitution Amount Challenge

Text: The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2000), requires a defendant convicted of fraud, like Jeune, to pay restitution to victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c). The restitution owed to the victim must be an “amount of loss actually caused by the defendant’s conduct.” United States v. Foster, 878 F.3d 1297, 1307 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The government must first establish the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence. Baldwin, 774 F.3d at 728 (citation omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) (“Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.”) Since calculating restitution amounts can be “an inexact science,” a district court need only 38 USCA11 Case: 19-13018 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 39 of 65 make a “reasonable estimate of the loss” based on the available information. United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). At the restitution hearing, the government submitted its trial exhibit of a summary chart listing 125 tax returns associated with Jeune’s businesses. Using records collected and subpoenaed during the IRS civil investigation, IRS Auditor Schmergel prepared the summary chart, which purported to account for the tax loss relating to false withholding, public theft of money, and false material items on tax returns. She tracked down the information and organized it by the taxpayers’ first and last names, Social Security numbers, reported employers and wages, and the tax preparer’s EFIN. Schmergel calculated $398,021 as the total intended IRS loss from the claimed tax refunds attributable to false wage and withholding claims. Jeune countered that the restitution amount owed to the IRS was $199,971. The district court overruled Jeune’s objections and determined that the trial evidence supported the government’s restitution calculation. Accordingly, the district court ordered Jeune to pay $398,021 in restitution owed to the IRS. On appeal, in challenging the restitution amount, Jeune raises two new challenges that she did not present to the district court. Normally, we review factual findings about the specific restitution amount for clear error. United States v. Bane, 720 F.3d 818, 824 (11th Cir. 2013). But because Jeune didn’t raise these objections 39 USCA11 Case: 19-13018 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 40 of 65 in the district court, we review them now for plain error. See Deason, 965 F.3d at 1265. Under plain-error review, the defendant bears the burden to establish (1) an error that she did not intentionally relinquish or abandon, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Hawkins, 934 F.3d 1251, 1264 (11th Cir. 2019). If all three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to notice and correct a forfeited error, “but only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Hernandez, 906 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Jeune first argues that the total restitution amount does not account for whether taxpayers repaid the IRS any refunds obtained through fraudulent tax returns. She also notes that at least 50 of the 125 transactions in the summary chart indicate full issuance directly to the taxpayers’ pre-paid debit accounts. Jeune asserts that the IRS will eventually require that these taxpayers repay the full refunds in the future, which will reduce the IRS’s actual loss. But the problem with Jeune’s argument is that loss is “measured from the perspective of the victim,” in this case the IRS. United States v. Machado, 333 F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2003). And other than a mere hope of a repayment, Jeune has not pointed to any evidence that she or other taxpayers have returned or will return 40 USCA11 Case: 19-13018 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 41 of 65 money to the IRS. United States v. Campbell, 765 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir. 2014); 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) (“Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.”). Second, Jeune argues that the restitution award does not account for individual participation in the conspiracy by others, such as Voltaire, Gordon, Jacob, and Dorothy. But even when the district court finds that more than one defendant contributed to the victim’s loss, the court in its discretionary authority “may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount of restitution or may apportion liability among the defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim’s loss and economic circumstances of each defendant.” Baldwin, 774 F.3d at 729 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h) (emphasis added)). As we have explained, Jeune’s involvement in the scheme here was substantial, and the district court was entitled to hold her accountable for the entire restitution amount. Id. We find no error. But even if we did, in the Eleventh Circuit, error cannot be plain in the absence of a Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent on point. Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1357. Here, none supports Jeune’s arguments. Because we find no plain error that is “obvious” or “clear under current law,” Jeune’s argument as to the restitution amount fails. United States v. Humphrey, 164 F.3d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1999). 41 USCA11 Case: 19-13018 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 42 of 65