Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
No. 08-5026
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00117-BR-1)
Argued:
Decided:
August 3, 2010
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Lomas was indicted in a multi-count indictment
charging conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and mail
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341. Lomas pled guilty to one
count of mail fraud pursuant to a plea agreement in which the
parties left the issue of restitution for the sentencing courts
determination. The district court sentenced Lomas to serve 240
months in prison and to pay $45,675,365.97 in restitution to 993
victims of his mail fraud scheme.
that
under
the
Mandatory
Victim
Act,
18
U.S.C.
we
vacate
the
order
of
restitution.
We
reject
Lomass
I.
On May 10, 2007, Lomas was named in an 18-count indictment
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina.
his
co-defendants
violation
of
18
with
U.S.C.
conspiracy
1341.
to
commit
Counts
Two
mail
through
fraud
in
Eighteen
The
Indictment
began
with
lengthy
introduction
that
stated
introduction
Indictment.
that
were
the
allegations
incorporated
into
It
set
forth
in
the
each
count
of
the
Introduction
are
incorporated
into
each
count
in
this
Indictment.).
The
introduction
schemes
that
Lomas
catalogued
and
his
the
extensive
co-defendants
used
co-defendant
Michael
Young
which
revenue
individuals
generated
were
by
operated
an
to
defraud
In 1999, Lomas
entity
named
The
promised
pay
overlapping
15%
telephones,
annual
return
payable
from
monthly,
in
Pennsylvania
order,
Lomas
authorities
and
his
issued
TAAG
co-defendants
cease-and-
renamed
their
of
their
scam,
promising
14.35%
annual
return
and
extensive
use
of
false
and
misleading
statements,
both
and
his
co-defendants
scammed
approximately
$70
in
estimates
approximately
that
$4
million
individuals
lost
monthly.
tens
of
The
millions
government
dollars
to
part,
13,
that,
on
or
about
March
2003,
Lomas
and
his
co-
J.A. 59-60.
the
government
agreed
to
dismiss
the
remaining
part
restitution
of
to
his
any
plea
agreement,
victim
in
Lomas
whatever
agreed
amount
the
to
Also
make
Court
J.A. 64.
may
The
defrauded
and
suffered
loss
of
$70,967,712.90.
The
ordered
Lomas
to
pay
$45,675,365.97
to
993
victims,
stating that Lomas was jointly and severally liable with his
6
U.S.C.
3663A(a)(2),
and
noted
that
Count
Two
of
the
II.
We review criminal restitution orders under an abuse of
discretion standard.
(4th
Cir.
(4th Cir.
1996);
1994).
United
A
States
sentencing
v.
Hoyle,
court's
33
F.3d
discretion
in
415,
420
ordering
III.
The
district
court,
after
conducting
hearing,
granted
It
contends
that
none
of
the
993
people
in
the
pled
([T]he
guilty
court
under
shall
the
MVRA.
See
18
U.S.C.
order
that
the
v.
United
States,
495
U.S.
411
3663A(A)(1)
defendant
make
He argues, citing
(1990),
superseded
by
Thus,
harmed
by
the
specific,
narrow
scheme
that
Lomas
$45,675,365.97
in
restitution
to
993
people
because
the
are
all
explicitly
Indictment,
including
nothing
Lomass
narrowed
in
the
incorporated
Count
factual
plea
into
Two.
The
agreement
or
basis
of
his
each
count
government
guilty
plea
conviction.
of
adds
the
that
colloquy
Thus,
the
10
the
count
of
his
Indictment
to
which
he
pled
guilty.
later
amendment
added
identical
language
to
the
104
Stat.
4863
3663(a)(2)(1994))
with
(codified
as
Antiterrorism
amended
and
at
18
U.S.C.
Effective
Death
Henoud,
81
F.3d
at
488,
we
explained
that
the
1990
We stated:
11
The MVRA
12
3663A(a)(1) (the
MVRA
and
thus
the
district
court
was
required
to
order
Victims are
3663A(a)(2).
victims
defendants
includes
criminal
any
person
conduct
in
conspiracy, or pattern.
his
knowing
participation
Id.
in
directly
the
course
harmed
by
of
scheme,
the
the
scheme
to
defraud
executed
We reject his
adopt
Lomass
contentions.
We
most
recently
discussed
this
issue in United States v. Karam, 201 F.3d 320, 325-26 (4th Cir.
2000). 3
was indicted for wire fraud, money laundering, and aiding and
abetting.
executing
Id.
a
at
323.
multi-year
The
scheme
indictment
to
defraud
charged
private
him
with
medical
Id. at 325.
detailed
Karams
medical practices.
24
months
Id.
imprisonment
long-term
scheme
to
defraud
private
ordered
him
to
pay
$774,508
in
Id. at 323-24.
On appeal, Karam
14
Id. at 325.
courts
from
may
order
criminal
restitution
scheme
encompassing
regardless
of
losses
whether
the
long
as
the
loss
is
direct
result
of
the
defendant's
(citing
$624,508
in
$150,000
and
Henoud,
81
restitution
found
F.3d
that
that
the
was
at
488).
ordered
additional
We
in
evaluated
addition
money
was
to
the
the
directly
in
fraudulent
investment
schemes.
Id.
at
326.
of
each
individual
criminal
15
act,
e.g.,
indictment
count,
as
long
defendant's
as
the
criminal
acts
conduct
are
or
the
are
direct
closely
result
of
the
related
to
the
scheme. 4
condition
precedents
are
fulfilled.
The
Here, both
financial
harm
participation
in
the
overall
scheme
to
defraud
The
he
defrauded
attempted
to
(retiree
GW).
via
defraud
In
mail
the
fraud
in
individual
fact,
Lomass
the
same
identified
schemes
are
manner
in
as
Count
more
he
Two
tightly
used
the
various
derivations
of
the
same
scheme
to
16
it
awarded
$45,675,365.97
in
restitution
to
Lomas
993
victims.
IV.
For all of these reasons, the district court decision is
AFFIRMED.
17