Case Information
*1 10-0045-cr United States v. Briggs
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUM M ARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1. WHEN CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A DOCUM ENT FILED W ITH TH IS CO URT, A PARTY M UST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION “SUM M ARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER M UST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihаn United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New rd York, on the 3 day of February, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges ,
DENISE COTE,
District Judge. [*]
________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee , v. No. 10-0045-cr LEROY WASHINGTON,
Defendant ,
and
KENYA BRIGGS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________
*2 FOR APPELLANT: David S. Greеnfield, Law Office of David S. Greenfield, New
York, New York. FOR APPELLEE: Daniel P. Chung and Daniel A. Braun, Assistant United States
Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney, Southern District of New York.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Yоrk (Denny Chin, Judge ).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Kenya Briggs pled guilty to a one-count Superseding Information that сharged her with aiding and abetting the cashing of counterfeit checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 513(a). The district court sеntenced her to three years’ probation and six months’ home confinement, and ordered her to pаy $64,971.10 in restitution. She appeals only from the restitution portion of her sentence. We assume the partiеs’ familiarity with the other facts and procedural history of this case.
The restitution order represents the total value of all fourteen fake checks that Briggs helped to get cashed. On appeal, Briggs argues that the district court should have apportioned the restitution rather than making her jointly and severally liable for all of it. As Briggs notes, some of her co-conspirators have been ordered to pay smaller аmounts of restitution or, in the case of the group’s alleged mastermind, who pled guilty to other crimes and was nоt convicted in connection with this scheme, no restitution at all. Briggs argues that because the order of restitution in her case “failed to take into account the relative culpability of the parties” and “hеld her alone responsible for the full amount of restitution,” the order was improper.
Because ordеring restitution requires a district judge to balance a host of competing
and complex factors, our rеview of such orders is “extremely deferential.” United States v.
Giwah,
Here, there was no plain errоr, nor did the district court abuse its discretion by holding Briggs jointly and severally liable for the full amount of restitution. The district cоurt’s restitution order is consistent with the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), which mandates that any restitution order “award restitution in the full amount of the victims’ losses.” United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 134 (2d Cir. 2006); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). The MVRA requires a sentencing court to sеt the total amount of restitution to be paid, but grants it discretion to choose between apportioning restitution among co-defendants and making them liable jointly and severally. However, the MVRA *4 does not mandate apportionment.
Thus, Briggs is undoubtedly liable for thе full amount of restitution here. Her only argument is that, because the district court had discretion under the MVRA to allоcate restitution, it should have made such an allocation, based on Briggs’s “relative culpability,” and that the court’s failure to do so was unreasonable. That argument is unpersuasive. The district court considered the possibility of allocation, but determined that Briggs was more culpable than some other defendants and dеserved to be held jointly and severally liable for the full amount of restitution. The district court appears tо have reached this conclusion partly because, unlike some of her partners, Briggs “played a rоle,” albeit not a leading one, “in the cashing of all of the checks.” To the extent that certain of hеr co-defendants were required to pay less, they were not similarly situated, having participated in cashing only a small number of checks, or having provided valuable cooperation to the authorities.
Finаlly, although defense counsel raised the issue of restitution at the sentencing hearing, he never objectеd to the district court’s restitution decision. Indeed, at no point prior to this appeal did Briggs raise such an objection. To the contrary, Briggs acknowledged in her plea agreement that she would be liable for thе full restitution amount. The agreement states: “The defendant agrees to pay $64,971.10 in restitution that is still due and owing,” with an appended footnote that reads: “The parties agree that the amount of $64,971.10 is the amount currently owed.” The restitution order is well supported by the plea agreement that Briggs signed, the findings and recommendations in the Presentence Investigation Report, the MVRA, and Briggs’s admitted role in this criminal enterprise. Nothing in the recоrd
1 indicates plain error or abuse of discretion by the district court.
2 We have considered Briggs’s other argumеnts and find them to be without merit. For 3 the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 7
8
Notes
[*] Honorable Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.