7:21-cr-00457
S.D.N.Y.Oct 17, 2022Background:
- Sholam Weiss was convicted in the Middle District of Florida on 93 counts related to an insurance-fraud/money‑laundering scheme and sentenced; his prison term was commuted by the President on Jan. 19, 2021, but his supervised release, forfeiture, and a large criminal fine survived.
- The fine was originally $123,399,910 and, with interest and penalties, totals roughly $300,000,000; Weiss had paid about $3,000 as of the court’s prior order.
- Jurisdiction over Weiss’s supervised release was transferred to the Southern District of New York under 18 U.S.C. § 3605 on July 14, 2021.
- Weiss moved to terminate the fine in August 2022; the Government opposed the motion and Weiss filed a reply; the Court previously denied his motion to terminate supervised release.
- The Court held it lacks jurisdiction to terminate or modify the underlying fine: the statutory transfer under § 3605 does not include authority over fines, compassionate‑release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) does not apply to fines or to a commuted sentence, and First Step Act relief cited by Weiss is inapplicable to non‑drug offenses.
- The Court denied Weiss’s motion and directed him to seek relief from the Middle District of Florida if he wishes to challenge the fine.
Issues:
| Issue | United States' Argument | Weiss' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a transferee court under 18 U.S.C. § 3605 can terminate or modify a criminal fine | §3605’s transfer is limited and does not include the statutory subchapters governing fines; jurisdiction over the fine remains with the sentencing court | The fine is a condition of supervised release and thus the transferee court may modify it under its supervisory authority (citing §3563) | Denied — §3605 does not grant power to alter fines; fine jurisdiction remains with the Middle District of Florida |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (compassionate release) permits eliminating the fine | §3582 applies to reducing terms of imprisonment and does not address fines; Weiss’s prison term was commuted so §3582 is inapplicable | §3582 falls within subchapter D and thus transferee court may act under it to affect sentence components including fines | Denied — §3582(c)(1)(A) applies to imprisonment only and does not authorize terminating fines |
| Whether First Step Act relief or precedent (El Herman) supports transferee-court authority to act on the fine | First Step Act provisions cited apply to covered drug offenses and to specific sentencing‑reduction mechanisms; Weiss’s convictions are non‑drug offenses | First Step Act and El Herman support transferee-court authority and preclude returning to the sentencing district | Denied — the cited First Step Act provision is inapplicable (applies to drug‑related covered offenses), so El Herman does not support Weiss |
| Whether the Court has inherent authority to terminate the fine | Statutory scheme limits transferee authority; no substantive argument supports inherent power here | Weiss invoked inherent authority but offered no substantive legal showing | Denied — Court declines to exercise any asserted inherent power in light of Congress’s statutory scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Akinrosotu, 637 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2011) (a fine is an independent part of the sentence and cannot be modified merely because it becomes a condition of supervised release)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012) (discusses the constitutional and statutory treatment of criminal fines; not a basis for applying compassionate‑release to fines)
- United States v. El-Herman, 971 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2020) (interprets a First Step Act provision for reducing sentences for covered drug offenses; court found the provision inapplicable here)