United States v. Robert Mason
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13536
5th Cir.2013Background
- Ten defendants indicted in a 50-count mortgage-fraud scheme (Mar 2002–Jan 2006); two pled guilty, eight convicted on various counts after a ~7-week jury trial.
- Michael Lewis Andrews brokered two loans (Creek Bend and Appalachian), recruited investors, and had a minor role; acquitted on the overarching conspiracy count but convicted on Counts 16–17 relating only to the Creek Bend transaction.
- District court sentenced Andrews to 24 months, ordered $108,659.15 in mandatory restitution, and $121,434.64 in forfeiture—amounts that included losses/proceeds from the Appalachian transaction.
- Andrews did not object below to the restitution/forfeiture calculations and raised the challenge on appeal, so the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed convictions and sentences for the other defendants, but found plain error as to Andrews’s restitution and forfeiture amounts because they included funds from a transaction (Appalachian) for which he was not convicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution may include losses from transactions beyond the counts of conviction | Andrews: restitution/forfeiture should be limited to Creek Bend only; Appalachian was not part of his convictions | Government: Counts 16–17 incorporated the indictment introduction describing the full scheme timeframe, so inclusion was proper | Court: Plain error; restitution and forfeiture must be limited to losses/proceeds from Creek Bend only |
| Standard of review for Andrews’s unpreserved challenge | Andrews: plain-error review applies and is satisfied | Government: argued no error (no plain or otherwise) | Court: applied plain-error test and found it met (error was plain, affected substantial rights, and correction required to avoid manifest injustice) |
| Temporal scope of restitution under MVRA | Andrews: MVRA limits restitution to conduct underlying the conviction | Government: incorporation language permits broader scheme losses | Court: MVRA limits restitution to loss caused by the offense of conviction; incorporation did not justify including uncharged transaction losses |
| Forfeiture calculation tied to counts of conviction | Andrews: forfeiture must reflect proceeds only from Creek Bend | Government: district court’s forfeiture amount encompassed broader scheme proceeds | Court: Plain error; remanded to correct forfeiture to Creek Bend proceeds only |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 2005) (limits restitution to temporal scope of indictment and warns against including unrelated transactions)
- United States v. Sharma, 703 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2012) (restitution cannot compensate for losses outside the temporal scope of acts of conviction)
- United States v. Wright, 496 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2007) (restitution allowed for actions pursuant to a fraudulent scheme but limited to scheme scope tied to conviction)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved appellate claims)