United States v. Yalincak
853 F.3d 629
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Yalincak pled guilty to bank and wire fraud and was ordered in April 2007 to pay $4,182,000 in restitution.
- Yalincak moved (Apr. and Nov. 2007) for credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(2) for funds collected in two bankruptcies: $1,050,907.38 (Daedalus) and $90,000 (HMMH).
- The district court issued a text-only order on December 26, 2007 granting those motions “absent objection” but did not explain the basis or address whether funds were actually distributed to victims.
- Nearly eight years later the district court vacated that December 2007 order sua sponte (May and Sept. 2015), concluding the earlier grants were premature and then recalculated credits based on amounts actually distributed to victims.
- Yalincak appealed, arguing the December 2007 order was a final, appealable order that the district court lacked authority to vacate; the government argued it was interlocutory or conditional.
- The Second Circuit held the December 2007 order was final as to entitlement to credit for the particular collected sums and vacated the district court’s vacatur of that order, remanding for proceedings consistent with that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order granting a § 3664(j)(2) credit is final and appealable before full satisfaction of restitution | Yalincak: a § 3664(j)(2) order that conclusively determines entitlement to credit for particular funds is final and thus not subject to later sua sponte vacatur | Government/district court: such post-judgment credit orders are interlocutory or conditional and can be revisited until restitution proceedings conclude | Court: A § 3664(j)(2) order is final and appealable when it conclusively determines entitlement to credit for particular funds; December 2007 order was final |
| Whether the district court could vacate its Dec. 2007 order in 2015 under its inherent power (LoRusso) | Yalincak: once final, the district court lacked authority to vacate the order years later | Government: district court may correct interlocutory/post-judgment mistakes under LoRusso | Court: LoRusso power extends only to interlocutory orders; because the Dec. 2007 order was final as to those funds, the court erred in vacating it |
| Whether amounts "collected" but not distributed to victims count as recoveries under § 3664(j)(2) | Yalincak conceded the grants were erroneous on the merits because only amounts actually distributed to victims qualify | Government: the district court properly required proof of distributions and excluded administrative expenses and distributions to non-victims | Court: On the merits, only amounts actually distributed to victim-creditors count under § 3664(j)(2); collected-but-not-distributed sums and administrative expenses are not creditable |
| Scope of the December 2007 order (did it bind future rulings on later-collected amounts) | Yalincak contended the order granted credit for “any and all funds” collected in Daedalus and thus governed later distributions | Government: even if Dec. 2007 granted current collected sums, it could not be binding as to hypothetical future collections | Court: The December 2007 order was final as to the specific sums collected and identified at that time, but it could not bind the court as to later-collected or hypothetical amounts |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. LoRusso, 695 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1982) (courts may grant relief from erroneous interlocutory orders but lack power to alter final orders)
- United States v. McGinn, 787 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2015) (§ 3664(j)(2) allows offsets only for funds actually distributed to victims, not merely collected)
- Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945) (finality defined as ending litigation on the merits leaving nothing to do but execute judgment)
- In re American Preferred Prescription, Inc., 255 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001) (practical construction of finality in post-judgment context)
- Vera v. Republic of Cuba, 802 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) (post-judgment collection proceedings: some orders are ministerial and not immediately appealable)
- United States v. Kollintzas, 501 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2007) (garnishment orders are final as to a defendant’s claim to particular assets and thus appealable)
- EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012) (post-judgment orders after entry of judgment are not automatically final; context matters)