United States v. Nivis Martin
803 F.3d 581
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Martin and her ex-husband executed sham real-estate transactions using her father as a straw buyer and submitted materially false mortgage applications (inflated income, falsified bank balances, fabricated leases and deposits) to obtain multiple loans on three properties.
- Proceeds from the Miami Apartment sham sale were distributed to participants; Martin and her ex-husband continued making the straw-buyer’s mortgage payments before eventual defaults and short sales.
- Two days after the Miami Apartment sale, Martin and her ex-husband purchased a $1.55 million Beach House using fraudulently inflated information and diverted a seller credit to a company Martin controlled. Those loans later were sold to successor lenders and later defaulted/short-sold.
- The Secret Service investigated; Martin was indicted on conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, bank fraud, and two counts of wire fraud. A jury convicted her on all counts; she was sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay $963,400.47 in restitution.
- On appeal Martin challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) denial of a §3B1.2 role reduction, and (3) the restitution calculation and whether the successor lenders were victims under the MVRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Martin of conspiracy, bank fraud, and wire fraud | Martin argued government failed to prove her knowledge, intentional misrepresentations, or that she defrauded financial institutions | Government relied on circumstantial and documentary evidence showing Martin recruited straw buyer, procured falsified documents, signed applications, diverted proceeds, and benefited from transactions | Court: Evidence was sufficient; convictions affirmed |
| Whether lenders affected/"victims" for bank/wire fraud counts | Martin contended some lenders were not federal financial institutions or suffered no harm | Government showed federally insured institutions extended or acquired loans based on fraudulent applications and successor lenders relied on those representations | Court: Financial institutions were affected; convictions on bank and wire fraud upheld |
| Entitlement to a role-reduction under U.S.S.G. §3B1.2 | Martin claimed she was a minor/minimal participant relative to others | Government and district court found Martin recruited straw buyer, provided funds and false documents, inflated her own income, and played key roles in three transactions | Court: No clear error in denying a role reduction; decision affirmed |
| Restitution under MVRA: are successor lenders victims and was amount proper? | Martin argued successor noteholders may have paid less than outstanding principal and might have profited; district court used outstanding principal minus short-sale recovery without proof of purchase price | Government argued successor lenders purchased loans in reliance on fraud and thus were victims; district court awarded losses based on outstanding principal less short-sale proceeds | Court: Successor lenders qualify as MVRA victims (proximate harm established), but district court erred in calculating restitution without evidence of purchase price; restitution award vacated and remanded for proper loss determination |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942 (11th Cir. 2015) (elements of conspiracy and knowledge standard)
- United States v. Vernon, 723 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2013) (circumstantial evidence and jury inferences in fraud/conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Friske, 640 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2012) (successor lenders may be MVRA victims though loss calculation may require proof of purchase price)
- United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2000) (government may present a reasonable estimate of loss for restitution)
- United States v. Howard, 784 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2015) (measure of successor lender’s loss depends on purchase price paid for the loan)
- United States v. Beacham, 774 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2014) (district court abused discretion using original loan amounts to calculate successor lender restitution)
- United States v. James, 592 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2010) (formula for successor-lender loss: purchase price less recoveries, plus foreseeable expenses)