United States v. Daugerdas

Decision Date22 February 2021
Docket Number09cr581
PartiesUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, Defendant.

09cr581

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

February 22, 2021


MEMORANDUM & ORDER

WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, Senior United States District Judge:

Pro se Defendant Paul M. Daugerdas petitions this Court for a writ of audita querela vacating the forfeiture and restitution orders entered following his convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States and other crimes related to a fraudulent tax shelter scheme. Specifically, Daugerdas contends that his forfeiture and restitution obligations are unenforceable in view of recent Supreme Court precedent that applies retroactively to this criminal action. (See Pet. for Writ of Audita Querela, ECF No. 933 ("Petition"), at 1.) For the following reasons, the Petition is denied.

BACKGROUND

On July 1, 2013, the Government filed a sixth Superseding Indictment charging Daugerdas with running a fraudulent tax shelter scheme from approximately 1994 until 2004. (See generally ECF No. 644 ("S6 Indictment").) The S6 Indictment contained forfeiture allegations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1981(a)(1)(C)1 and 18 U.S.C. § 1982(a)(2)(A), seeking forfeiture of any proceeds obtained from the conspiracy and mail fraud offenses. (S6 Indictment ¶¶ 108-108(a).) On October 31, 2013, following an eight-week trial, a jury in this District

Page 2

convicted Daugerdas of seven counts in the S6 Indictment, including: one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; four counts of client tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201; one count of obstructing the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a); and one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. (ECF No. 775, at 7807-14; see ECF No. 838 ("Judgment"), at 1-2.) On June 24, 2014, this Court sentenced Daugerdas principally to 180 months of imprisonment and imposed $371,006,397 in restitution. (Judgment, at 3, 6-7). Additionally, this Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture ("Forfeiture Order") against Daugerdas in the amount of $164,737,500.2 (ECF No. 836.)

Daugerdas appealed his conviction and sentence, including the Forfeiture Order. (ECF No. 841.) With respect to the Forfeiture Order, Daugerdas argued that the Government failed to establish the requisite "nexus" between his criminal conduct and certain property sought within the Order. United States v. Daugerdas, 837 F.3d 212, 231 (2d Cir. 2016). The Second Circuit rejected that argument—along with Daugerdas's remaining arguments—and affirmed his conviction and sentence on September 21, 2016. (ECF No. 896.) Daugerdas then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on October 2, 2017. Daugerdas v. United States, 837 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 62 (2017). This Petition followed, as did a separate habeas proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.3

Page 3

Daugerdas presents three grounds for audita querela relief. First, he claims that the Forfeiture Order is unlawful because it imposes joint and several liability in violation of Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017). Second, Daugerdas contends that the conspiracy and mail fraud offenses cannot serve as predicates for the forfeiture obligation because neither offense was adequately charged or proven by the Government. Finally—and relatedly—Daugerdas argues that "the charges alleged in the indictment which [gave] rise to all of the restitution and virtually all of the forfeiture, were the subject of an acquittal by the jury," and therefore the continued imposition of his forfeiture and restitution obligations violates Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (2017). (Suppl. Reply in Supp. Pet. for Writ of Audita Querela, ECF No. 977, at 4; see Petition, at 14.)

DISCUSSION

The writ of audita querela is an "ancient" common law writ, Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 380 n.24 (2d Cir. 1997), "of a most remedial nature, and invented lest in any case there should be an oppressive defect of justice, where a party who has a good [defense] is too late in making it in the ordinary forms of law," Humphreys v. Leggett, 50 U.S. 297, 313 (1850). While Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(e) expressly abolished audita querela in civil cases, the writ "remains available in limited circumstances with respect to criminal convictions," United States v. Richter, 510 F.3d 103, 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). However, "few courts ever have agreed as to what circumstances would justify [that] relief." Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614 (1949) (Black, J.) (plurality opinion).

In the Second Circuit, the writ of audita querela "is probably available where there is a legal, as contrasted with an equitable, objection to a conviction that has arisen subsequent to the conviction and that is not redressable pursuant to another post-conviction remedy." United States v. LaPlante, 57 F.3d 252, 253 (2d Cir. 1995); see also United States v.

Page 4

Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that the writ of audita querela "survive[s] only to the extent that [it] fill[s] 'gaps' in the current systems of postconviction relief"). Indeed, the writ "might be deemed available if [its] existence [was] necessary to avoid serious questions as to the constitutional validity of both § 2255 and § 2244." Triestman, 124 F.3d at 380 n.24. "In other words, if the absence of any avenue of collateral attack would raise serious constitutional questions about the laws limiting those avenues, then a writ of audita querela would lie." Richter, 510 F.3d at 104.

In this Circuit...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT