United States v. Anthony Floyd Hemphill
694 F. App'x 697
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anthony Hemphill and his father formed A.F.H. Construction, LLC and solicited advance payments from multiple non-profits by claiming A.F.H. would donate modular buildings and that recipients only needed to pay transport/setup costs.
- Victims wired money; no buildings existed, were delivered, or set up; Hemphill pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and six counts of wire fraud.
- District court sentenced Hemphill to 41 months and ordered $324,824 restitution under the MVRA: $160,174 to Jarrod Flanagan Ministries, $159,650 to Don Nordin Ministries, and $5,000 to Teen Challenge Women’s Ministries, based on victims’ PSR declarations.
- The Jarrod Flanagan award was calculated from costs the ministry incurred in buying, transporting, and constructing replacement modular buildings after the fraud; Teen Challenge’s award matched a $5,000 check listed in the PSR.
- Hemphill did not preserve his objections at sentencing; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution may include replacement and associated costs paid after the fraud | Hemphill: those replacement costs were not caused by his conduct and thus not recoverable under the MVRA | Government: restitution in amount claimed by victims as losses (based on PSR declarations) | Court: Vacated Jarrod Flanagan portion — replacement/associated costs not caused by defendant and thus not proper restitution |
| Whether Teen Challenge’s $5,000 award was duplicative of Jarrod Flanagan’s award | Hemphill: $5,000 may have been duplicated (misc. cost) and court made no factual findings | Government: PSR undisputedly shows Teen Challenge wrote a $5,000 check to A.F.H.; supports award | Court: Affirmed Teen Challenge award but instructed district court to avoid duplication on remand |
| Standard of review for unpreserved restitution objections | Hemphill: contends he properly objected | Government: record shows objections withdrawn; plain-error review applies | Court: Applied plain-error review (must show plain error affecting substantial rights and integrity) |
| Requirement for district court factual findings on restitution amounts | Hemphill: court failed to make requisite findings tying losses to his conduct | Government: relied on PSR declarations | Court: Remanded Jarrod Flanagan restitution for limited resentencing and required specific factual findings about actual losses |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.) (MVRA covers wire fraud victims)
- United States v. Liss, 265 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir.) (restitution must be based on loss actually caused by defendant)
- United States v. Huff, 609 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir.) (proper restitution equals amount wrongfully taken; court must make factual findings)
- United States v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir.) (plain-error standard articulated)
- United States v. Romines, 204 F.3d 1067 (11th Cir.) (review for plain error when defendant withdraws objections)
- United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.) (PSR statements can support restitution when undisputed)