Searching over 5,500,000 cases.
Not what you're looking for? Try an advanced search.
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
MARK GONZALEZ, Defendant.
The Clerk of Court's finance department requires clarification of restitution orders in the above-referenced cases before it can begin processing payments to any identified victims. While the defendants were charged in separate cases, some of their conduct relates to the same real property. After restitution was ordered, the Court's Finance Department created separate restitution accounts for each victim which revealed inconsistencies. These must be resolved before defendants' payments can be properly allocated.
The first clarification required pertains to Defendant Mark Gonzalez's Judgment of Conviction, (No. 2:12-cr-446-GMN-VCF, ECF No. 18) ("Gonzalez J.").[1] In the Judgment, Defendant Gonzalez's restitution was not ordered joint and several as to any other defendants. When Defendant Wagner's Judgment of Conviction, (No. 2:10-cr-399-MMD-GWF, ECF No. 282) ("Wagner J."), was entered, however, Defendant Wagner's restitution was ordered to be paid jointly and severally with Defendant Gonzalez. The Court's finance office cannot allocate or disperse any restitution amount collected until this apparent inconsistency is addressed. Therefore, the U.S. Attorney is required to clarify whether or not the restitution amounts listed for Defendants Gonzalez and Wagner are, in fact, joint and several, The Court seeks an additional clarification in regards to Defendant Gonzalez's Judgment of Conviction, The Judgment identifies CitiMortgage as a victim with a loss of $439, 141, 34, However, on the victim spreadsheet provided to the Court's finance department by the U.S. Attorney's Office, there are no properties listed for CitiMortgage. It appears the true victims may have been Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for this Defendant (if the Judgment amounts originally assigned to CitiMortgage were for Fannie Mae properties). Based on the U.S. Attorney's spreadsheet, the total loss amount for Freddie Mac is $694, 616.00, and the total loss amount for Fannie Mae is $1, 079, 890.72. Therefore, the U.S. Attorney is required to clarify: (1) whether the restitution amounts are joint and several; and (2) whether CitiMortgage is accurately identified as a victim or if the victims are only Freddie Mac with a loss of $ 694, 616.00 and Fannie Mae with a loss of $1, 079, 890.72.
The property at 6789 Kostner Street is listed as a victim as to Defendants Edmond, (see J., No. 2:10-cr-320-KJD-PAL, ECF No. 30) ("Edmond J."), Enloe, (see Am. J., No. 2:10-cr-319-JCM~GWF, ECF No. 50) ("Enloe Am. J."), Gonzalez, (see Gonzalez J.), Ockunzzi (see J., Case No, 2:10-cr-272~LDG-GWF, ECF No. 44) ("Ockunzzi J."), Rozzen (see J., No. 2:10-cr-305-RLH-PAT, ECF No. 41) ("Rozzen J."), Wagner (see J., No. 2:10-cr-399-MMD-GWF, ECF No, 282) ("Wagner J, "), and Wong Culotta (see J., No. 2:10-cr-300-JCM-PAL, ECF No. 22) ("Wong Culotta J."). On the victim spreadsheet provided by the U.S.. Attorney's Office, there are two separate amounts for this property, one loss amount totaling $219, 273 and another totaling $175, 245.42. Therefore, Defendants Emond, Ockunzzi, Wong Culotta, and Rozzen appear to be responsible joint and severally for the $219, 723 amount (Defendant Rozzen's portion of which is $186, 796.56). Additionally, there appears to be a separate joint and several amount of restitution ordered to be paid by Defendants Gonzalez and Wagner for the $ 175, 245.42 amount. However, in the original spreadsheet provided by the U.S. Attorney, Defendant Enloe is listed as being ordered to pay $50, 172.54 for the same property. This same amount is owed on a different property on the same street, 6765 Kostner Street, which also identifies the victim as Fannie Mae. Accordingly, it appears that two separate Joint and Several accounts are needed for Fannie Mae on the 6789 Kostner Street property, and Defendant Enloe alone will owe Fannie Mae a restitution amount for the 6765 Kostner Street property. The U.S. Attorney is only required to confirm whether this interpretation above is accurate, as it would not change the victim's or Defendants' amounts.
The next clarification required pertains to defendants Enloe, (see Enloe Am. J.), Rozzen, (see Rozzen J.), Wagner, (see Wagner J.), Wong Culotta, (see Wong Culotta J.), Akoopie, (see Judgment, No. 2:10-cr-304-ECR, ECF No. 19), Edmond, (see Edmond J.), and Antonio, (see Am. J., No. 2:10-cr-322-PMP-GWF, ECF No. 27). The properties at 8016 Crazy Train and 3928 Maldive appear twice on the U.S. Attorney's spreadsheet for the exact same amounts. For some Defendants this amount is listed as being owed to CitiMortgage, yet for other defendants it is listed as being owed to Fannie Mae. The U.S. Attorney is required to verify the total loss amount for these two properties and to identify the victim(s) for these two properties.
Finally, the same verification is required with regards to the 9132 Fusion Drive property. This property pertains to defendants Enloe, (see Enloe Am. J."), Rozzen (see Rozzen J.), Wagner (see Wagner Am, J.), Wong Culotta (see Wong Culotta J.), Edmond (see Edmond J.), Gonzalez (see Gonzalez J.), and Morales (see Judgment, No. 2:10-cr-317-LDG-RJJ, ECF No, 20). According to the victim spreadsheet, Edmond owes $206, 531.48 individually to Fannie Mae, and Enloe, Gonzalez, Rozzen, Wagner, and Wong Culotta owe a joint and several total to Fannie Mae of $241, 762.92 (for a total loss to Fannie Mae of $448, 294.40). On the victim spreadsheet, it shows that Wagner owes this exact same amount of $206, 532, 48 joint and severally to the FDIC for what used to be PMC Bancorp. Morales also owes $248, 538.00 to the FDIC for the same property. the Court requires clarification for the total loss amount for this property and identification of the victim(s) for this property.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the U.S. Attorney's Office shall provide clarification of the above-identified restitution issues no later than Friday, April 20, 2018. The response shall be filed in each of the cases listed in the caption of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants will have 14 days to file any replies to the Government's response.
[1] In the interest of efficiency, the Court hereinafter refers to each Defendant using only their ...
Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion. To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase, you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents and concurrences that accompany the decision. Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion, there may not be additional text.
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
