United States v. Parnell
| Decision Date | 06 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-7 (WLS),CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-12 (WLS) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. STEWART PARNELL, MICHAEL PARNELL, SAMUEL LIGHTSEY, and DANIEL KILGORE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
Defendants Stewart Parnell, Michael Parnell, Samuel Lightsey, and Daniel Kilgore have each been convicted and sentenced in connection with charges related to the Peanut Corporation of America's (PCA) shipment of adulterated and misbranded food in interstate commerce. At their sentencing hearings, the Court, in its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5), deferred issuing an order as to restitution and ordered that the Government provide additional information to the United States Probation Office so that the Probation Office could make a more precise recommendation as to the amount of victims' losses. (Docs. 484, 515; 1:13-cr-7, Doc. 34.)1 On January 26, 2016, the Court held a restitution hearing. The Court herein makes findings as to what amount, if any, of restitution the Defendants should be ordered to pay.
PROCEDURAL and FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Stewart Parnell was indicted for mail fraud and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 and conspiracy to commit those crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1349; introduction of adulterated and misbranded food into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and conspiracy to commit those crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 371; and obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 2. Stewart Par-nell was convicted by a jury on all counts alleged in the Indictment except for Count 60, a wire fraud count. (See Doc. 285.) Michael Parnell was indicted for mail fraud and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 and conspiracy to commit those crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1349; introduction of adulterated and misbranded food into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and conspiracy to commit those crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Michael Parnell was convicted by a jury on all counts with which he was charged except for eight counts of introduction of adulterated food into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead. (See Doc. Id.)
Samuel Lightsey pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349, Conspiracy to Introduce Adulterated Food into Interstate Commerce with Intent to Defraud or Mislead in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), Introduction of Adulterated Food into Interstate Commerce with Intent to Defraud or Mislead in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), Interstate Shipments Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and Obstruction of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 2. Lightsey's plea agreement did not contain any reference to restitution. (See Doc. 153.)
Daniel Kilgore pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1349, Conspiracy to Introduce Adulterated Food into Interstate Commerce with Intent to Defraud or Mislead in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), Introduction of Adulterated Food into Interstate Commerce with Intent to Defraud or Mislead in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), Introduction of Misbranded Foods into Interstate Commerce with the Intent to Defraud in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), Interstate Shipments Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Kilgore's plea agreement did not contain any reference to restitution. (See 1:13-cr-7, Doc. 6.)
On January 26, 2016, the Court held a restitution hearing. Defendants Stewart and Michael Parnell were not present at the hearing, and the Court found that Defendants Stewart and Michael Parnell effectively waived their right to appear at the hearing by filing sworn affidavits stating their desire not to appear. Defendants Samuel Lightsey and Daniel Kilgore were present at the hearing. Attorneys for all four Defendants were present at the hearing.At the conclusion of the restitution hearing, the Court ordered the Parties to file any supplemental briefings or evidence within fourteen days. The Parties did not file additional briefing or evidence. (See Docket.)
DISCUSSION
Defendants Stewart and Michael Parnell were sentenced on September 21, 2015. Defendants Samuel Lightsey and Daniel Kilgore were sentenced on October 1, 2015. At the sentencing hearings, the Court determined that each Defendant was required to pay restitution under the Mandatory Victims' Restitution Act. In pronouncing the Defendants' sentences, the Court deferred its determination of restitution amounts because it was not yet satisfied that it could make a reasonable calculation of the total restitution amounts based on the information it had been furnished by the United States Probation Office and the Government's counsel. The Court ordered the Government to provide additional restitution information to the United States Probation Office and directed the United States Probation Office to provide a report including "total restitution amounts for all known victims, including corporate and third-party (such as insurance providers) victims." (Docs. 484, 515, 596; 1:13-cr-7, Docs. 34, 39.) The Court concluded that because it made clear at the time of sentencing that restitution was mandatory as to each of the above-named Defendants and that the only outstanding issue to be determined was the amount of restitution, the Court retained authority to order restitution even though the ninety-day deadline set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) had lapsed. (Doc. 600 at 1-2; 1:13-cr-7, Doc. 40 at 1-2 (citing Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 607-08 (2010)).)
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA") applies where (1) a defendant is convicted of (or pleads guilty to) an offense against property under Title 18, including any offense committed by fraud or deceit, and (2) an identifiable victim or victims who have suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1).2
The Court notes that Stewart Parnell and Samuel Lightsey's convictions for Obstruction of Justice are not crimes against property and do not otherwise trigger the MVRA; however, the Court finds that some of the Defendants' crimes —mail fraud, wire fraud, and interstate shipments fraud and conspiracy to commit those offenses —are crimes against property and offenses committed by fraud. Committing a crime under Title 18, conspiring under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 to commit a crime under Title 18, or conspiring under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to commit a crime not under Title 18 are all offenses under Title 18 for mandatory restitution purposes. See United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 644, 677 (10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Brennan, 526 F.Supp. 2d 378, 383 (E.D. NY 2008). Here, all of the Defendants' crimes against property, except for the Introduction of Adulterated Food into Interstate Commerce with Intent to Defraud or Mislead under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), fall within one of those three categories. The Defendants' crimes, except for Introduction of Adulterated Food into Interstate Commerce with Intent to Defraud or Mislead and Obstruction of Justice, are thus crimes that can trigger the MVRA under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii). United States v. Huff, 609 F.3d 1240, 1247 (11th Cir. 2010) (); United States v. Dokich, 614 F.3d 314, 318 (7th Cir. 2010) ().
Further, the Defendants' MVRA-triggering crimes involved identifiable victims who suffered physical injury and pecuniary loss. Those victims include the individuals who were sickened by contaminated food products and their estates, the food production companies that suffered financial harm as a result of their receiving salmonella-laced peanut products from PCA, and the insurance companies that paid claims resulting from the Defendants' crimes. Because the Defendants' committed qualifying crimes with identifiable victims who suffered physical injury or pecuniary loss, the Court finds that the Defendants are required to pay restitution under the MVRA unless an exception applies under § 3663A(c)(3).3
The MVRA's mandatory restitution provisions do not apply to offenses against property, including any offenses committed by fraud or deceit, if the district court finds, from thefacts on the record that "the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable" or "determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process." 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)(A)-(B). These exceptions notably do not apply to offenses "in which an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss." § 3663A(c)(1)(B), (3). In the following review of the evidence in the record, the Court will determine whether one of the exceptions to mandatory restitution applies.
When restitution is disputed, the Government is required to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e)). At the request of the United States Probation Office (USPO), the Government is required to consult with the victims and detail any losses subject to restitution; such detail is to be disclosed to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial