United States v. Ehizele Seignious, 757 F.3d 155

Seignious pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, access device fraud, bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft, related to a multi-year credit card fraud scheme.
District court held five evidentiary hearings to determine the loss amount for restitution under MVRA § 3663A and admitted Government Exhibit 1A outlining 1,827 credit card numbers and losses.
Government witness Windish testified to losses and created Exhibit 1A; the district court found actual losses between $2.5M and $7M, later adopting $1,213,347 as actual loss for MVRA restitution.
The district court ordered restitution of $1,213,347 payable to the Clerk of Court, based on the loss figure and the MVRA, without individual victim-specific loss findings in the judgment.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief; Seignious filed a pro se brief challenging restitution procedures and loss calculation, while the government declined to respond initially.
This court affirmed Seignious’s convictions and sentence, and its restitution order, applying plain-error review for MVRA procedures and evidentiary support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
MVRA compliance validity	Seignious argues §3664(a)-(d) procedures were not properly followed.	Seignious contends lack of procedural compliance affected rights.	Plain-error review applied; no reversible error found affecting rights.
Restitution amount support	Government asserts $1,213,347 reflects actual losses supported by Exhibit 1A and witness testimony.	Seignious asserts evidence supports far lower actual losses (e.g., $176k).	District court's $1,213,347 actual-loss finding upheld as plausible and not clearly erroneous.
Reasoning explanation for restitution	The court adequately relied on cooperator testimony and Exhibit 1A to justify the amount.	Insufficient explanation for why MVRA restitution amount was chosen.	Any lack of express reasoning did not affect the outcome; no relief awarded.
Victim identification in judgment	Restitution Worksheet post-dates judgment but aligns with victims listed in Exhibit 1A.	Judgment did not name victims or their losses explicitly.	Plain-error relief denied; no prejudice shown.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (duty to conduct full record review when counsel files Anders brief)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (comprehensive review when Anders applied)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error standard and prejudice analysis in unpreserved errors)
United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2003) (MVRA liability extends to conspiracy losses)
United States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2010) (actual loss finding under MVRA reviewed for clear error)
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error framework—four-prong test)
United States v. Burns, 990 F.2d 1426 (4th Cir. 1993) (evidentiary sufficiency and reliance on accomplice testimony)
United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2003) (MVRA liability extends to conspiratorial losses)