United States v. Andrew Parker
927 F.3d 374
5th Cir.2019Background
- Andrew Parker pleaded guilty to a scheme using his company (SATG) to defraud the Export-Import Bank and related frauds; the district court sentenced him and ordered $10 million restitution.
- Parker repeatedly sought relief via direct appeal, multiple 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, and requests for authorization to file successive § 2255 motions; Fifth Circuit repeatedly denied COAs and authorization and previously sanctioned him.
- Parker filed another § 2255 motion without appellate authorization; the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, and Parker’s requests for reconsideration were denied.
- Parker separately moved to quash the Government’s writ of execution enforcing restitution, arguing (among other recycled claims) that Ex‑Im Bank had recovered money via civil judgments that should offset his restitution.
- The district court held a hearing; Parker presented no evidence of post‑judgment recoveries before the initial hearing and later submitted additional documents in reconsideration, but failed to specify amounts recovered.
- The Fifth Circuit (panel) denied a COA for challenges to the conviction, affirmed denial of the motion to quash the writ of execution, imposed a $1,000 sanction, and barred further filings challenging conviction/sentence until sanction paid or leave obtained.
Issues
| Issue | Parker's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over collateral challenges labeled other than § 2255 | Parker sought review of district rulings he styled outside § 2255 | The motions were successive § 2255 attempts requiring prior court of appeals authorization | Appeal as to conviction dismissed for lack of COA/authorization; district court lacked jurisdiction to hear successive § 2255 without authorization |
| Whether district court’s denial of motion to quash writ of execution is appealable | Parker argued denial was appealable as final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Govt argued post‑judgment execution orders can be final under FDCPA framework | Denial is a final, appealable order under § 1291 (post‑judgment execution leaves nothing for district court to do) |
| Whether Parker can offset restitution by post‑judgment civil recoveries by victims | Parker claimed Ex‑Im Bank recovered amounts via notes/judgments that should reduce his restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(2) | Govt argued Parker failed to prove any post‑judgment recoveries or amounts; defendant bears burden to show offsets | Court agreed offsets are permitted but Parker failed to identify or prove amounts recovered; his offset claim fails |
| Whether sanction and filing bar were appropriate | Parker continued repetitive filings despite prior sanctions/denials | Govt supported sanction to deter frivolous, repetitive filings | Court imposed $1,000 sanction, barred further filings challenging conviction/sentence until paid or leave obtained; warned of escalating sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (treatment of disguised habeas claims as § 2255 motions)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (certificate of appealability standard)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (COA standard articulation)
- Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833 (district court lacks jurisdiction over successive § 2255 without authorization)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137 (res judicata and finality of judgments)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (limits on collateral attacks labeled as jurisdictional)
- United States v. Sheinbaum, 136 F.3d 443 (defendant bears burden to prove restitution offsets)
- Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118 (definition of final decision)