United States v. Singletary
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16810
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Defendants and others conspired from 1997 to 2004 to defraud FHA-insured mortgages, HUD, and mortgage lenders in violations including 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, and 1343.
- The Singletarys pled guilty on Count One to the § 1001 aspect; later reinstated not-guilty pleas and then pled guilty again to the § 1343 conspiracy.
- At sentencing, the district court entered a preliminary $1,000,000 forfeiture and later ordered $1,000,000 restitution to HUD Collections as part of the punishment.
- The government sought a total restitution of $3,042,205 based on FHA losses of $1,732,585 and HUD losses of $1,309,620, tied to 89 foreclosed mortgages; PSRs used $1,732,585 for § 2B1.1 loss.
- On restitution review, the district court failed to link the $1,000,000 amount to specific mortgages and relied on a guess, and the court later vacated the restitution finding and remanded for individual mortgage-by-mortgage determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVRA restitution standard applicability | Singletarys argue restitution must reflect actual victim loss under MVRA, not guideline loss. | Government argues restitution can reflect guideline losses or judgments based on court’s discretion. | Restitution must reflect actual loss, not just guideline loss. |
| Requirement to identify recoverable loss per mortgage | Singletarys contend the district court must specify which of the 56 mortgages caused losses totaling the restitution amount. | Government contends aggregate proof supports overall restitution without per-mortgage specificity. | Court must identify specific mortgages and losses for meaningful appellate review. |
| Use of a reasonably intelligent guess for restitution | Singletarys contend the statute bars reliance on an approximated figure. | Government urged the court could use a reasonable estimate in light of evidence. | Court cannot rely on an unanchored guess; must base restitution on provable losses per MVRA. |
| Adequacy of Government proof for the 56 mortgages | Singletarys argue government proof is insufficient to establish fraud and recoverable losses for those mortgages. | Government asserts witnesses and records support the losses from those 56 loans. | Government failed to prove by a preponderance which mortgages were fraudulent or the precise losses; remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sepulveda, 115 F.3d 882 (11th Cir.1997) (government burden to prove disputed sentence facts by preponderance)
- Huff v. United States, 609 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir.2010) (MVRA restitution vs. guideline loss; actual loss standard)
- United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir.2010) (restitution and loss calculations and evidentiary standards)
- United States v. Bernardine, 73 F.3d 1078 (11th Cir.1996) (evidentiary sufficiency for loss determinations)
- United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir.2008) (loss calculation standards for restitution and guideline interplay)