United States v. Tillman

• Decision Date: 21 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 4:19-cr-06007-SMJ-03,No. 4:19-cr-06007-SMJ-01,4:19-cr-06007-SMJ-01,4:19-cr-06007-SMJ-03
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERY SAMUEL TILLMAN (01), and BRANDON C. CAMPBELL (03), Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Washington

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERY SAMUEL TILLMAN (01),and BRANDON C. CAMPBELL (03), Defendants.

No. 4:19-cr-06007-SMJ-01

No. 4:19-cr-06007-SMJ-03

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

September 21, 2020

RESTITUTION AND FORFEITURE ORDER

Robert Samuel Tillman (01) and Brandon C. Campbell (03) pleaded guilty to sex-trafficking offenses defined under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1594(c). Section 1593(a) thus requires the Court to impose restitution. Following the Defendants' change of plea, the Government requested restitution as well as a forfeiture money judgment. The Government also asks the Court to impose joint and several liability on both awards.

Tillman and Campbell dispute the proper amount of restitution owed to the victims, W.A., E.C., and V.V. They also challenge the Government's request for forfeiture in the form of a personal money judgment. Finally, all parties debate whether the Court should impose joint and several liability on W.A. and E.C.'s restitution award and whether the Court should impose joint and several liability on any forfeiture award the Court might deem appropriate. The parties fully briefed and argued the matter, and the Court finds it ripe for disposition.

BACKGROUND

Tillman and Campbell trafficked minor victims in a prostitution scheme that involved posting ads on websites like Backpage.com, Cityxguide.com, and Adultsearch.com, booking hotel rooms for "dates," facilitating and monitoring the dates, and collecting the money the victims earned through prostitution. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 172-1, 172-3 & 172-4. Following a grand jury indictment, Tillman pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). See ECF Nos. 96, 94 & 137. Campbell pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(1). ECF Nos. 86, 87 & 88. The Court entered its judgment and sentence but deferred determination of restitution and forfeiture so it could conduct a hearing on the matter. ECF Nos. 140, 163.

Tillman and Campbell trafficked at least two victims together: W.A. and E.C. Tillman alone trafficked V.V., and the Government does not dispute that Tillman alone is responsible for the restitution owed to V.V. ECF No. 156 at 4.

The Government seeks restitution based on the average gross proceeds derived from trafficking the victims, which amounts to $81,600 for victim W.A.,$81,600 for victim E.C., and $19,740 for victim V.V. ECF No. 156 at 9-11. While these figures represent an average for each victim, the Government also provides a low-and-high-end range based on the evidence in the record. See id. The Government asks the Court to impose joint and several liability on the restitution awarded to victim's W.A. and E.C. Id. The total restitution requested for Tillman thus equals $182,940. Id. The total restitution requested for which Campbell might be jointly and severally liable thus equals $163,200. Id.

The Government also seeks forfeiture in the form of a personal money judgment against both defendants. Id. Its forfeiture demand equals the total amount of restitution requested for each respective defendant; the Government also asks the Court to impose joint and several liability on the forfeiture award related to property derived from trafficking victims W.A. and E.C. Id.

Tillman and Campbell challenge the Government's restitution and forfeiture requests on several grounds, but mainly argue that the Government miscalculated the number of days they trafficked W.A. and E.C. and the amount of money they derived from their sex-trafficking scheme. They also disagree on whether the Court should impose joint and several liability. See generally ECF Nos. 168, 171. Campbell claims Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) bars this court from imposing joint and several liability, though Tillman appears to take no position on the issue. ECF No. 168 at 4-6; see generally ECF No. 171. The Court willdiscuss the specific facts supporting the Government's restitution and forfeiture requests as part of its analysis and will not duplicate all the relevant facts here.

DISCUSSION

A. Amount of Restitution Award

Courts must order restitution for sex trafficking crimes defined under chapter 77, the Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (TVPA). 18 U.S.C. § 1593(a); United States v. Williams, 783 F. App'x 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2019). The TVPA provides a defendant must pay their victims "the full amount of the victim's losses," which includes "the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim's services or labor or the value of the victim's labor as guaranteed under the minimum wage and overtime guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA]."¹ Id. §§ 1593(b)(1), (3).

18 U.S.C. § 3664 governs procedure for issuance and enforcement of a restitution order. That statute "requires both that a district court set forth its reasons in resolving a dispute over restitution and that a restitution award, if one issues, be adequately supported by evidence in the record." United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1222 (9th Cir. 2011). But given "the remedial purposes underlying theMVRA," the Ninth Circuit affords "'district courts a degree of flexibility in accounting for a victim's complete losses.'" United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 557 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044, 1053 (9th Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018)). The Government need not prove the amount of restitution "with exactitude." In re Sealed Case, 702 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Instead, it must support its restitution order with "some reasonable certainty." United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2007)). Courts calculating restitution awards are thus entitled to rely on any evidence "bearing 'sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.'" United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651, 665 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Singletary, 649 F.3d 1212, 1217 n.21 (11th Cir. 2011)). For these reasons,

§ 3664(e)'s reference to a 'preponderance of the evidence' requires that, when there is a dispute as to restitution, a restitution order must be supported by evidence in the record showing that it is more likely than not that the defendant's offense proximately caused the losses for which restitution was awarded and that it did so in the amounts awarded.

Tsosie, 639 F.3d at 1222.

The Government calculated each victims' restitution award by multiplying (the average number of "dates" per day) by (the average fee per "date") by (the number of days each defendant trafficked each victim). ECF No 156 at 9-11. TheCourt will thus analyze whether the Government has proven by a preponderance of the evidence (1) the average number of "dates" per day for each victim, (2) the average fee each victim charged per "date," and (3) the number of days each defendant trafficked each victim.

To begin with, the Government offers evidence that the victims went on between six and ten "dates" per day—seven days per week. ECF No. 156 at 10; ECF No. 172-4 at 3. Tillman argues the Court should disregard the victims' statements as "stale" and use only the "dates" established by contemporaneous communications on Facebook. ECF No. 171 at 5. Tillman extrapolates an estimated number of "dates" based on these communications. See id. But the defendants and victims likely did not record all their "dates" on Facebook. The Court finds that the victims' statements provide a reliable estimate of how many "dates" they averaged per day.

Even so, Campbell similarly claims the Government has not met its burden to proof and points the Court to Tsosie, 639 F.3d at 1222 (holding that the government failed adequately supply its reasons in resolving a dispute over a restitution award with adequate evidence in the record) and Waknine, 543 F.3d at 557 (holding that the government in a RICO conspiracy case offered insufficient evidence to prove more likely than not that the victims lost the amounts listed in their loss summaries). He insists that the Government must offer more specific andreliable evidence. But again, the Court finds the victims' statements specific and reliable. See Waknine, 543 F.3d at 557 (holding that the district court may use only evidence that possesses sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy).

Both Tillman and Campbell ask the Court to reduce that average number of "dates" because the victims did not always engage in a "commercial sex act" under § 1591. Rather, Tillman and Campbell contend that the victims turned "tricks" and set "traps" by essentially robbing "Johns" of their money without performing any commercial sex act. ECF No. 171 at 8; ECF No. 168 at 9; ECF No. 169 at 2. The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive. The victims themselves stated that they performed between six and ten commercial sex acts per day, which the Court finds credible.

The Government has therefore proven an approximate frequency of "dates"—between six and ten per day. See ECF No. 156 at 10. For the purposes calculating the restitution award, the Court will use the average as established by the Government, eight "dates" per day.

Turning to the fees charged for each "date," the Government offered evidence that W.A. and E.C. usually charged $140 per half hour and $200 per hour for their respective "dates." ECF No. 156 at 10. Tillman again contends the Court should use only the fee averaged through the Facebook record, which he calculates to equalabout $155 per "date." ECF No. 171 at 7. But the Government need not prove the amount of restitution "with exactitude." In re Sealed Case, 702 F.3d at 66. The Court finds the victims statements credible, so the Government has established the general fees that the victims charged. See Tsosie, 639...