United States v. Monique Ellis, 938 F.3d 757

Background

Monique Ellis used stolen identities to file hundreds of electronic tax returns (2008–2012), obtaining fraudulent refunds; IRS agents seized laptops and notebooks in a 2012 search that contained TurboTax UIDs and PII for over 400 people.
In November 2016 a grand jury returned an indictment charging Ellis with eight counts of wire fraud and eight counts of aggravated identity theft alleging the scheme began "no later than in or about January 2012."
Grand‑jury testimony by IRS Agent Jason Ward included some inaccuracies; the district court denied Ellis’s motion to dismiss the indictment and a jury convicted her on all counts.
At sentencing the district court adopted an intended‑loss figure of about $700,000 (including requested refunds tied to TurboTax UIDs and ~$130,000 in deposits to Ellis‑controlled accounts), producing a Guidelines enhancement and a 48‑month sentence on fraud plus a consecutive 24 months on identity‑theft.
The district court later ordered forfeiture of $11,670 and restitution of $352,183.20 to the United States, Georgia, and Mississippi; Ellis appealed, contesting (1) indictment dismissal denial, (2) loss amount for sentencing, (3) restitution calculation, and (4) restitution for pre‑limitation‑period conduct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ellis)	Defendant's Argument (U.S.)	Held
1. Motion to dismiss indictment based on inaccurate grand‑jury testimony	Agent Ward made inaccurate statements that substantially influenced the grand jury, warranting dismissal	Precedent (Mechanik, Cobleigh) treats grand‑jury perjury claims as cured by subsequent conviction	Dismissal claim fails; bound by Cobleigh/Combs—conviction renders alleged grand‑jury errors harmless
2. Intended‑loss amount for Guidelines calculation	District court erred in holding Ellis responsible for all returns tied to TurboTax UIDs and all deposits to her accounts; some returns could be legitimate or filed by others	Loss estimate reasonable under preponderance standard; UID, IP, laptop location, PII in apartment, and bank deposits tie returns to Ellis	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports ~$700,000 intended loss; no clear error; Guidelines enhancement stands
3. Restitution amount ($352,183.20)	Restitution should be limited to actual losses caused by the charged offense; challenges overlap and timeliness of some items	MVRA restitution mirrors loss findings; restitution amount follows the district court’s loss determination	Affirmed: restitution calculation not an abuse of discretion and tracks the adopted loss finding
4. Restitution for fraudulent refunds before Nov. 2011 (statute of limitations)	18 U.S.C. § 3282’s five‑year limit bars restitution for acts earlier than five years before the indictment	When part of a continuing scheme, last overt act within limitations preserves liability for the whole scheme (Andrews)	Rejected: restitution for entire scheme, including pre‑2011 acts, is permissible so long as scheme continued within five years of indictment; Kokesh inapposite

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (conviction cures alleged grand‑jury perjury defects)
United States v. Cobleigh, 75 F.3d 242 (6th Cir. 1996) (applies Mechanik to bar relief for grand‑jury perjury claims after conviction)
United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2004) (same principle)
United States v. Wendlandt, 714 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2013) (district court need only make reasonable loss estimate by preponderance at sentencing)
United States v. Andrews, 803 F.3d 823 (6th Cir. 2015) (last overt act within five years permits prosecution/restitution for entire scheme)
United States v. Boring, 557 F.3d 707 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court discretion in restitution under MVRA)
United States v. Jewitt, 978 F.2d 248 (6th Cir. 1992) (MVRA requires restitution for losses attributable to the defendant’s scheme)
Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (discussed and distinguished on limitations issue)