United States District Court, S.D. New York
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, District Judge.
This matter returns from the Court of Appeals, which remanded for further proceedings relating to an order of restitution imposed pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A ("MVRA"). The Court has resentenced defendant, correcting the identity of a victim. This Memorandum expands upon the reasons given at resentencing.
Defendant John Simmons pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy. In the Count One conspiracy, Simmons and others fraudulently procured loans with which straw purchasers bought eight apartments in a condominium building at 203 West 81st Street in Manhattan. That building is governed by an unincorporated homeowner's association called The 203 Condominium, whose managing agent is Siren Management Corp. ("Siren").
On May 14, 2012, the Court sentenced Simmons principally to 41 months' imprisonment. Pursuant to a consent agreement, the Court ordered forfeiture in the amount of $1, 319, 246.84. The Court also ordered restitution to Community Preservation Corp. ("CPC") in the amount of $1, 066, 466.10 and to Siren in the amount of $262, 418. Simmons appealed from the restitution orders, arguing that: (1) CPC was not a victim but rather an uncharged co-conspirator, Def. Br. on Appeal at 40; (2) "neither Siren nor the condominium association were victims of the crime charged, " because "losses attributable to the condominium association should not have been the subject of a restitution order.... in a... bank fraud case, " id. at 26, 30 (capitalization altered); and (3) "the loss claimed by Siren was never properly documented, " id. at 30 (capitalization altered).
On November 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued a summary order rejecting the first two of these arguments but agreeing with the final one. United States v. Simmons, 544 F.Appx. 21 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court of Appeals found the record insufficient to support the order as to Siren, stating:
The difficulty here is that the government provided so little to document or clarify Siren's losses that it deprived Simmons of the opportunity to present his position in any meaningful way. The government presented nothing more than an unsworn letter from Siren setting forth a lump-sum amount lost in "common charges and assessments." Simmons had no way to know, for example, what comprised the "common charges and assessments" or the time period this figure covered for each apartment. As the government has provided almost no information about the loss amount, no documentation regarding Siren's asserted loss, and no explanation as to why procuring details or documentation was impracticable, we agree with Simmons that the district court abused its discretion.
Id. at 24. The Court of Appeals concluded:
The matter is remanded to the district court in accordance with the procedures of United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir.1994), for determination of the amount of loss that Siren incurred, for which restitution must be awarded under the MVRA. If the government properly substantiates the amount of Siren's loss as previously determined, the judgment previously entered may stand. If the government fails to substantiate the amount of Siren's restitution order, the district court should vacate the judgment and ever [sic] a new sentence reflecting the appropriate amount of restitution. REMANDED.
Id. (footnote omitted).
On remand, the Court received a letter from the government dated June 19, 2014, with exhibits, and a letter from defense counsel dated August 11, 2014, with exhibits. At the parties' suggestion, the Court held a conference on September 18, 2014. The Court subsequently received defense counsel's letter dated September 25, 2014, with exhibits; the government's letter dated October 9, 2014, with exhibits including the sworn declaration of Howard Landman, Siren's vice president (the "Landman Declaration"); defense counsel's letter dated October 23, 2014; defendant's pro se letter dated November 6, 2014, with exhibits; and the government's letter dated November 10, 2014, with exhibits. The Court resentenced Simmons on November 10, 2014.
On remand, both parties asked the Court to enter a new judgment. Although the government stood by the amount of restitution, it now asserted that the victim was The 203 Condominium (the homeowner's association) rather than Siren (the managing agent). Seizing on that change of position, defense counsel contended that the Court must enter a new judgment with no restitution for either Siren or The 203 Condominium. In the alternative, defense counsel argued that the government failed to properly substantiate The 203 Condominium's loss amount.
Restitution is mandatory in this case, see 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii), and the government bears the burden to demonstrate the amount of a victim's loss, see id. § 3664(e). The government met its burden to substantiate the $262, 418 ...