throbber
Case: 20-40157 Document: 00515822310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`
`
`No. 20-40157
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`
`FILED
`April 14, 2021
`
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`
`versus
`
`
`Stewart Kile Williams,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff—Appellee,
`
`Defendant—Appellant.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Texas
`USDC No. 1:18-CR-663-1
`
`
`
`Before Higginbotham, Costa, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
`Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge:
`
`The question presented is “Where’s the beef?” Wendy’s Kind of
`Commercial, Broadcasting, Mar. 26, 1984, at 57. Stewart Kile Williams
`pleaded guilty to four counts of wire fraud for purporting to broker cattle
`deals worth millions of dollars, pocketing the money, and then disappearing
`the herd. The district court ordered more than $2 million in restitution.
`Williams challenges that award on the ground that the Government failed to
`prove which cattle he sold and which he stole. We affirm.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-40157 Document: 00515822310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
`
`No. 20-40157
`
`I.
`
`A.
`
`For three years, Williams brokered cattle sales between Jones Alto
`Colorado Ranch and Wyatt Ranches of Texas. Wyatt Ranch bought the
`cattle. Jones Ranch sold them. And Jones Ranch paid Williams one third of
`its profits from the sales.
`
`The transactions began in late 2015. The first sale went off without a
`hitch. A few months later, in January of 2016, Williams made a second sale to
`Wyatt Ranch. This sale did not go as smoothly as the first order, but Wyatt
`Ranch received the cattle. So far, so good.
`
`In March of 2016, Williams made a third sale to Wyatt Ranch. Wyatt
`Ranch purchased black cows. But when the cows arrived, Wyatt Ranch was
`dissatisfied. Not only were they delivered late, they had “problems.” Some
`were the wrong color, some were barren and had no udders, and some were
`sick or had died. Wyatt Ranch said no dice; it returned the defective cattle.
`
`Bradford Wyatt, the administrator of Wyatt Ranch, complained to
`Williams and threatened to sue Jones Ranch based on the defective cattle.
`Williams made excuses and persuaded Wyatt Ranch not to sue by promising
`to provide additional cattle to make up for Wyatt Ranch’s losses. Williams
`eventually finalized the purchase, and he even threw in an extra $30,000
`worth of cattle. But Bradford Wyatt remained dissatisfied and decided Wyatt
`Ranch was “done with Williams.”
`
`Williams, however, wasn’t done with Wyatt Ranch. Though Bradford
`Wyatt stopped ordering cattle, Williams didn’t tell that to Jones Ranch.
`Instead, Williams pretended to be Bradford Wyatt. Williams got a new phone
`number and an email address (Bradford.a.Wyatt@outlook.com) and gave
`them to Jones Ranch. Then Williams used his fake identity to purchase more
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 20-40157 Document: 00515822310 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
`
`No. 20-40157
`
`cattle from Jones Ranch. Williams forged Bradford Wyatt’s signature on
`purchase orders. And when Jones Ranch attempted to contact Wyatt Ranch
`personnel, Williams responded—pretending to be Bradford Wyatt.
`
`Under the pretense that “Bradford Wyatt” could not afford to prepay
`Jones Ranch for the cattle, Williams convinced Jones Ranch to front almost
`$2,000,000 to facilitate the sales. Jones Ranch paid some of that money to
`Williams directly; it paid some to various other ranches to purchase cattle for
`“Bradford Wyatt”; and it paid some to facilitate the storage, transportation,
`and feed of cattle that Williams fraudulently ordered. Jones Ranch’s losses
`included:
`
`• December 8, 2015: Jones Ranch transferred $105,000 to
`Williams;
`
`• February 2, 2016: Jones Ranch transferred $61,224 to Williams
`(including $25,244 for a feed mixer);
`
`• March 21, 2016: Jones Ranch transferred $285,000 to
`Williams;
`
`• April 18, 2016: Jones Ranch transferred $85,200 to Jordan
`Cattle Auction;
`
`• May 12, 2016: Jones Ranch transferred $601,150 to Williams;
`• July 25, 2016: Jones Ranch transferred $303,000 to Williams;
`• September 7, 2016: Jones Ranch transferred $369,175 to Jordan
`Cattle Auction;
`
`• March 24, 2017: Jones Ranch transferred $143,500 to Maddux
`Cattle Co.;
`
`• July 18, 2017: Jones Ranch issued a cashier’s check in the
`amount of $185,000 to Cross M. Cattle; and
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 20-40157 Document: 00515822310 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
`
`No. 20-40157
`
`• August 24, 2017: Jones Ranch issued a cashier’s check in the
`amount of $58,500 to Williams’s company, Casa Cattle.
`
`Although Jones Ranch made these transfers to Williams and other
`entities, “Bradford Wyatt” missed several payments. So Jones Ranch sought
`a promissory note and security agreement to protect itself. Williams signed
`the promissory note and security agreement—again doing so under the false
`pretense of being Bradford Wyatt.
`
`Eventually, Jones Ranch contacted Wyatt Ranch about its failure to
`pay. Bradford Wyatt was confused—he hadn’t authorized an order or
`received any cattle since March of 2016. Jones Ranch called the number
`Williams had provided. When Williams answered, he pretended to be
`Bradford Wyatt. But upon learning that the real Bradford Wyatt was on the
`line, Williams confessed.
`
`B.
`
`A grand jury charged Williams with four counts of wire fraud in
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and one count of aggravated identity theft in
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Williams pleaded guilty to the wire-
`fraud counts. Under his plea agreement, Williams waived his right to appeal.*
`In exchange, the Government dropped the aggravated-identity-theft charge.
`
`The principal dispute at sentencing was how to quantify the losses
`Williams imposed on his victims. To determine the custodial sentence, the
`district court turned to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Under those
`Guidelines, the offense level for wire fraud is based on the greater of the
`actual or intended loss. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A). Using that definition
`
`
`
`* The parties agree that the appeal waiver in Williams’s plea agreement does not
`bar his challenge to the restitution order. They correctly interpret Fifth Circuit precedent
`on this point. See United States v. Leal, 933 F.3d 426, 430–31 (5th Cir. 2019).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 20-40157 Document: 00515822310 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
`
`No. 20-40157
`
`of the loss amount, the Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) recommended an
`offense level of 25:
`
`U.S.S.G.
`
`§ 2B1.1(a)(1)
`
`Description
`
`Offense
`Level
`Base offense level for wire fraud, § 1343 7
`
`§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(I)
`
`Intended loss amount of $2,574,500
`
`§ 2B1.1(b)(17)(A)
`
`Total
`
`Deprived financial institution of
`$2,196,749 in gross receipts
`
`
`+16
`
`+2
`
`25
`
`The district court accepted the PSR’s loss estimates. Using an offense level
`of 25 and Williams’s criminal-history category of II, the PSR recommended
`a Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months. After hearing passionate victim-
`impact testimony about the “devastating” effect of Williams’s fraud on
`Jones Ranch, the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 70
`months in prison.
`
`The district court then scheduled a separate hearing to determine its
`restitution award. The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”)
`mandates restitution to victims of offenses under Title 18 that are
`“committed by fraud or deceit.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii); see United
`States v. Shelton, 694 F. App’x 220, 223 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). That
`obviously includes wire fraud. The MVRA also requires restitution for
`offenses “in which an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a . . .
`pecuniary loss.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(B). That obviously includes Jones
`Ranch. But unlike the Guidelines—under which intended losses can affect a
`custodial sentence—“[t]he MVRA limits restitution to the actual loss
`directly and proximately caused by the defendant’s offense of conviction.”
`United States v. Sharma, 703 F.3d 318, 323 (5th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 20-40157 Document: 00515822310 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
`
`No. 20-40157
`
`At its restitution hearing, the district court examined the disputed
`losses. For each line item, the district court credited a victim-impact
`statement averring that the expense constituted an actual loss. It then gave
`Williams an opportunity to rebut the Government’s evidence. Williams
`responded that he couldn’t show which payments resulted in a loss and
`which didn’t: “[I]n a sense my hands are somewhat tied in being able to rebut
`these things . . . it’s almost impossible to parse out what is legitimate and
`what allegedly is not.”
`
`The district court noted that the Government submitted evidence,
`victim-impact statements, and the PSR to justify each of its loss amounts—
`with two exceptions. First, Jones Ranch received the mixer it purchased from
`Williams. And second, the district court concluded that the $105,000
`payment made in December of 2015 fell outside of Williams’s fraudulent
`scheme. The district court excluded those two amounts from Jones Ranch’s
`losses, leaving a final tally of $2,066,525. The district court entered an
`MVRA restitution award for that amount. Williams timely appealed.
`
`II.
`
`We review the legality of an MVRA award de novo, and we review its
`amount for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mathew, 916 F.3d 510, 515
`(5th Cir. 2019). “The finding regarding the amount of loss is a factual finding
`[reviewed] for clear error.” Id. at 516. And the district court’s finding isn’t
`clearly erroneous if it’s “plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Ibid.
`(quoting United States v. Harris, 597 F.3d 242, 250 (5th Cir. 2010)).
`
`We start as always with the text of the statute. As relevant here, the
`MVRA requires a restitution award to reflect “the value of the . . . loss.” 18
`U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B)(i)(I). We have interpreted that provision to mean
`actual loss, not intended loss. See, e.g., United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 20-40157 Document: 00515822310 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
`
`No. 20-40157
`
`107 (5th Cir. 2006) (“The MVRA does not permit restitution awards to
`exceed a victim’s loss. . . . The court may not award the victim a windfall.”).
`
`The MVRA further says “[t]he burden of demonstrating the amount
`of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense shall be on the
`attorney for the Government.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e). The same provision also
`says, however, “[t]he burden of demonstrating such other matters as the
`court deems appropriate shall be upon the party designated by the court as
`justice requires.” Ibid. We have interpreted these two statutory sentences to
`establish a burden-shifting framework for loss-amount calculations. The
`Government first must carry its burden of demonstrating the actual loss to
`one or more victims by a preponderance of the evidence. Then the defendant
`can rebut the Government’s evidence. See, e.g., Sharma, 703 F.3d at 325
`(noting that we’ve “approved the transfer of at least a portion of the burden
`to a defendant to establish his entitlement to a restitution credit” in several
`cases); United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449, 470 (5th Cir. 2001) (affirming the
`rejection of a restitution credit where the defendant “was unable to provide
`reliable evidence supporting its [offset] claims”); United States v. Sheinbaum,
`136 F.3d 443, 449 (5th Cir. 1998) (stating the defendant bore “the burden of
`proving an offset” to restitution for any amounts it paid the victim in a civil
`settlement).
`
`Here the Government easily met its burden. It led the district court
`through each and every line item in its restitution request. For each one, the
`Government offered victim-impact testimony swearing that money was paid
`and nothing was received. The Government also offered the PSR’s findings,
`which the district court previously accepted. See Sharma, 703 F.3d at 323
`(noting a district court can rely on actual-loss amounts in the PSR if the
`amounts have “an adequate evidentiary basis and remain[] unrebutted by the
`defendants”). Based on the evidence, the district court found that Jones
`Ranch did not suffer an actual loss of two expenses: (1) the $105,000 payment
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 20-40157 Document: 00515822310 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
`
`No. 20-40157
`
`in December of 2015, and (2) the mixer received by Jones Ranch. The district
`court gave Williams credit for both and then ordered restitution for the
`balance. The district court did not err, much less clearly err or abuse its
`discretion.
`
`Our decision in United States v. Antonucci, 667 F. App’x 121 (5th Cir.
`2016) (per curiam), is not to the contrary. In that case, the district court did
`not analyze each of the victim’s expenses to ensure they were actual losses;
`the court instead presumed that all charges the defendant made using his
`employer’s credit card constituted “loss.” Id. at 123. On appeal, the
`Government conceded that was an erroneous methodology because it
`might’ve approximated the victim’s losses but certainly didn’t measure
`actual losses. Id. at 124.
`
`This case is very different. Here the Government concedes nothing.
`And here the district court approximated nothing. It went through the data
`itself, considered the testimony and evidence, and found that each line item
`individually constituted an actual loss by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`The Government bore its burden of proving an actual loss of
`$2,066,525. Williams’s only response
`is that he cannot rebut the
`Government’s evidence because he did not keep records of where the legal
`beef sales ended and the fraudulent ones began. That won’t cut it.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`8
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket