698 F.3d 64
2d Cir.2012Background
- Ageloff and Catoggio led a pump-and-dump securities fraud scheme affecting thousands of victims.
- Initial restitution order was $80 million under MVRA; Ageloff deposited about $536,000 for restitution.
- Remanded for resentencing in light of MVRA, with NASD loss data estimating roughly $190 million in losses.
- Eight-year remand delay occurred due to multiple factors including counsel changes and related proceedings.
- District court resentenced Ageloff to pay about $190.34 million and refused to release the held funds.
- Ageloff challenged the restraint of funds under the All Writs Act and raised Sixth Amendment and delay arguments; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the All Writs Act restrain assets pre-sentencing? | Ageloff argues restraint is inappropriate pre-sentencing. | The government contends restraint aids collection of restitution. | Yes; district court properly restrained assets to ensure future restitution. |
| Was the eight-year delay in resentencing prejudicial under constitution or statute? | Ageloff asserts delays violated rights and statutes. | Delay caused by various factors; not prejudicial to Ageloff. | No reversible prejudice; delay did not violate rights. |
| Should the court release any of the $536,000 held for restitution? | Ageloff seeks release to secure counsel and funds. | Funds should remain restrained pending restitution. | The funds were not required to be released. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required before resentencing? | Ageloff claims an evidentiary hearing was necessary. | Opportunity to be heard was provided; no hearing required. | No evidentiary hearing required; due process satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1981) (All Writs Act power justified to aid jurisdiction and law)
- United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989) (pretrial asset restraint does not arbitrarily deny right to counsel)
- United States v. Razmilovic, 419 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2005) (de novo review of legal issue; restraints tied to restitution collection)
- Alfaro Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 814 F.2d 883 (2d Cir. 1987) (acknowledges court may affirm on any adequate legal basis)
- United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (TRO upheld to prevent dissipation for restitution; context of All Writs Act authority)