408 F. App'x 458
2d Cir.2011Background
- Briggs pled guilty to aiding and abetting the cashing of counterfeit checks under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 513(a) under a plea agreement.
- The district court sentenced Briggs to 3 years’ probation, six months’ home confinement, and restitution of $64,971.10.
- The restitution order covered fourteen counterfeit checks that Briggs helped cash.
- Briggs appealed only the restitution portion, challenging allocation among co-defendants rather than joint liability.
- MVRA permits sentencing courts to choose between apportioning restitution or holding defendants jointly and severally liable.
- The district court held Briggs jointly and severally liable, partly reasoning Briggs played a role in cashing all checks.</10>
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MVRA require apportionment among co-defendants? | Briggs argues allocation based on relative culpability is required. | United States contends MVRA allows but does not require apportionment. | MVRA does not mandate apportionment; joint liability is permitted. |
| Was the district court’s joint-and-several restitution error-free under plain error review? | Briggs claims error, given no allocation. | United States contends no plain error; proper discretion exercised. | No plain error; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Did the district court properly base restitution on the plea agreement and MVRA? | Briggs contends the amount and allocation were improper. | United States asserts the order is supported by the plea, PSR, MVRA, and Briggs’s role. | Yes; restitution supported and properly calculated. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (MVRA requires full amount but allows discretion on allocation)
- United States v. Giwah, 84 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1996) (extremely deferential review of restitution orders; abuse of discretion standard)
- United States v. Lucien, 347 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2003) (review for abuse of discretion in restitution decisions)
- United States v. Carter, 489 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain-error framework in restitution appeal)