NOTICE ON FORFEITURE by USA as to Eric Dean Sheppard — USA v. SHEPPARD (Dkt. 289)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:22-cr-20290-BB · Doc. 289 · 2024-08-20 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A notice on forfeiture filed by the United States on August 20, 2024 in United States v. Eric Dean Sheppard, No. 1:22-cr-20290-BB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as Doc. 289. The notice seeks to narrow the forfeiture matters for the hearing on restitution and forfeiture set for August 23, 2024, and identifies the Amended Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, ECF No. 255, as the operative motion. It states that the court imposed a general order of forfeiture at the June 7, 2024 sentencing but that no order of forfeiture has yet been entered. The government now seeks only a forfeiture money judgment of $146,587 under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), based on the April 15, 2020 Alafaya Trails PPP loan, and no longer seeks forfeiture under § 982(a)(2)(A). The two-page notice is signed by an Assistant United States Attorney.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 22-20290-CR-BLOOM 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v.  
 
ERIC DEAN SHEPPARD, 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
  / 
 
NOTICE ON FORFEITURE 
  
 
The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States 
Attorney, hereby files this notice on forfeiture. There have been several forfeiture filings, and the 
United States seeks to aid the Court by specifying and narrowing the forfeiture matters to be 
addressed at the hearing on restitution and forfeiture set for August 23, 2024.  
The United States’s operative motion is its Amended Motion for Preliminary Order of 
Forfeiture (“Motion”), ECF No. 255. See also, 1st Gov’t Mot., ECF No. 252. After the United 
States filed its Motion, the Court narrowed the Defendant’s relevant conduct to include only three 
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans fraudulently obtained—the gross proceeds of which 
total $443,575. Then, at the Defendant’s June 7, 2024, sentencing, the Court imposed a general 
order of forfeiture against the Defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and ordered the 
Government to submit a proposed order. See Minute Entry, ECF No. 265; Judgment, ECF No. 
267; Not. on Forfeiture, ECF No. 264. Although the Court ordered forfeiture as part of the 
Defendant’s sentencing, and the United States submitted a proposed order, no order of forfeiture 
has yet been entered on the docket. Cf. McIntosh v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 980 (2024) (holding 
that “the failure to enter a preliminary order [of forfeiture] does not bar a judge from ordering 
forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on appellate review”).  
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 289   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2024   Page 1 of 2

2 
At this time, the United States seeks only a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of 
$146,587, based on the April 15, 2020, Alafaya Trails PPP Loan, under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). 
This is one of the loans on which the United States seeks restitution.  
The United States no longer seeks this forfeiture under § 982(a)(2)(A). Both § 981(a)(1)(C) 
and § 982(a)(2)(A) require a defendant to forfeit the proceeds of the crime. 1  But while 
§ 982(a)(2)(A) mandates forfeiture of gross proceeds, § 981(a)(1)(C) allows, in certain 
circumstances, for forfeiture of net proceeds. United States v. Peters, 732 F.3d 93, 99, 101–02 (2d 
Cir. 2013) (section 982(a)(2) requires forfeiture of gross proceeds or “receipts”). Under § 981, a 
defendant may obtain a reduction in forfeiture “to the extent that the loan was repaid, or the debt 
was satisfied, without any financial loss to the victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2)(C); see also Peters, 
732 F.3d at 101 n.2 (comparing § 982(a)(2) forfeiture to § 981(a)(2)(C)).  
Here, Defendant has not repaid the loan for which the United States seeks forfeiture and 
there remains financial loss to victims. As a result, Defendant is not entitled to a reduction under 
§ 981(a)(2)(C), and it now is immaterial whether the Court orders forfeiture under § 981(a)(1)(C) 
or § 982(a)(2)(A). Thus, the United States no longer seeks forfeiture under § 982(a)(2)(A).  
Respectfully submitted, 
MARKENZY LAPOINTE  
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
By: 
s/ Mitchell E. Hyman              
 
Mitchell Evan Hyman 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Florida Bar No. 125405 
U.S. Attorney’s Office  
99 N.E. 4th Street, 7th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33132-2111 
Telephone: (305) 961-9283 
E-mail: Mitchell.Hyman@usdoj.gov 
 
1Section 982(a)(2)(A) applies only where the fraud affects a financial institution. 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 289   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2024   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.615773.289.0.pdf

Size

86,360 bytes

SHA-256

f5aa5d46d3efb603034928851f45d12e7af2f4dbe78b19b8df6413fd9a9fae5e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.615773.289.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)