UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rickey Donnell BENNS, also known as Rickey D. Benns, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-51207.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 6, 2016.
327
Alexander Lee Calhoun (argued) Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
JAMES E. GRAVES, JR., Circuit Judge:
Rickey Benns appeals an order to pay restitution to the United States Deрartment of Housing and Urban Development imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. Because HUD is not a victim of Benns‘s convicted offense, the award of restitution is VACATED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Michael and Brenda Arnold conveyed their home, located at 1301 Red Deer Way in Arlington, Texas, to Rickey D. Benns. Despite the conveyance, the property remained in the Arnold‘s name. The property was subject to a mortgage loan held by Bank of America1 and insured by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).2 The mortgage was in arrears at the time of the transaction, but Benns promised to rent the property and pay the mortgage out of the rental proceeds. Benns successfully rented the property but failed to pay the mortgage.
Benns later sought to prevent foreclosure by attempting to refinance the mоrtgage on the Red Deer property. Since the previous owners still held the mortgage and were unaware that the loan continued to be in arrears, Benns forgеd the previous owners’ signatures on the loan modification application and produced a false pay stub in an attempt to deceive the bank into believing that the Arnolds still owned the property and that they were more creditworthy than was actually the case. The application was denied and the property was eventually foreclosed. HUD paid Bank of America for the default and suffered a loss of $54,906.59, which is the difference between what HUD paid Bank of America following foreclosure and the later sale price of the property.
On March 14, 2012, Benns was indicted on one count of making false statements relating to a crеdit application, in violation of
On September 28, 2012, Benns was sentenced to twenty-seven months imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and
On remand, Benns abandoned the challenge to the imprisonment because he had already served the entire jail term. He did, however, continue to oppose the restitution award. The district court, in a short bench ruling, made no factual findings but concluded that HUD was a direct victim of the false loan application and awarded HUD $54,906.59 in restitution. Benns now appeals.
DISCUSSION
The legality of a restitution order is reviewed de novo. United States v. Lozano, 791 F.3d 535, 537 (5th Cir.2015); United States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423, 436 (5th Cir.1998). Since Benns objected to the award, the restitution amount is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Beacham, 774 F.3d 267, 278 (5th Cir.2014).
The MVRA requires the district сourt, as part of sentencing, to order restitution payments to “victims” of certain crimes.
The MVRA broadly defines “victim” to include nоt only losses directly caused by the behavior underlying the convicted offense, but also losses arising more generally as a result of a conspiracy, scheme, оr pattern of criminal activity. But, restitution may be ordered for this expanded class of victims only if the count of conviction includes, as a statutory element of the offense, a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of activity. Maturin, 488 F.3d at 661; Espinoza, 677 F.3d at 732. Benns pleaded guilty to one count of submitting a false credit application to Bank of America. There is no indication in the indictment, factual summary, or guilty plea that the filing of the false application was part of a conspiracy, scheme, or pattern of criminal activity. Nor are there any decisions reading such a requirement into the elements of
To be a victim under the MVRA, a person or organization must suffer a foreseeable loss as a result of the conduct underlying the convicted offense. For example, in United States v. Espinoza, we held that a defendant convicted of unlawful possession of firearms could not be ordered to pay restitution to a pawn shop,
The government аrgues that HUD‘s loss was a direct result of the false application because the filing of the application delayed the foreclosure which resulted in HUD selling the property for a loss. But this argument is not supported by the record. During resentencing, the government was unable to produce any evidence that the appliсation resulted in a delay or even to establish when foreclosure proceedings were initiated. The government also failed to submit any evidence that the alleged delay, instead of market conditions or other factors, resulted in the loss. Thus, HUD‘s loss in this case, just like the harm in Espinoza and Mancillas, is outside the scope of the offense of conviсtion. Benns was indicted and pleaded guilty to one count of filing a false credit application in an attempt to refinance a mortgage. It therefore does not follow that the behavior underlying Benns‘s offense was the cause of HUD‘s loss.
Because the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that HUD was directly and proximately harmed by Benns‘s false credit application, we conclude that HUD is, therefore, not entitled to restitution in this case under the MVRA.
CONCLUSION
The restitution award is VACATED.
Thomas R. TUBESING, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-30347.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 6, 2016.