Judgment — United States v. Shibley (Dkt. 184, W.D. Wash. No. 2:20-cr-00174)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · No. 2:20-cr-00174-JCC · Doc. 184 · 2023-02-28 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
 v.
ERIC SHIBLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 22-30043
22-30113
D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00174-JCC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2023
Seattle, Washington
Before:  W. FLETCHER and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI,** District
Judge.
Eric Shibley (“Shibley”) appeals from the district court’s judgment in his
criminal case.  Shibley was convicted of fifteen total counts of wire fraud, bank
fraud, and money laundering.  He challenges the amount of restitution that the
FILED
FEB 28 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 *
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
 * *
The Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 184     Filed 02/28/23     Page 1 of 5

district court ordered him to pay his lenders, arguing that it should have been 
reduced by the amount that the government seized through forfeiture.  We have 
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.  We affirm. 
During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress established 
the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) to provide emergency loan assistance to 
businesses.  The Small Business Association (“SBA”) also issued loans through 
the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) Program.  Shibley submitted twenty-
six fraudulent loan applications to these programs. 
The government had executed forfeiture seizure warrants for five of 
Shibley’s business bank accounts prior to his conviction.  After the government 
moved for a combined preliminary order of forfeiture and an order of forfeiture, on 
January 21, 2022, the district court entered a preliminary order granting a forfeiture 
of $1,183,501.08, based on money that Shibley obtained through his fraudulent 
COVID-19 relief loans.  The forfeiture order became final at Shibley’s sentencing.  
Also at sentencing, the district court sentenced Shibley to forty-eight months in 
prison and three years of supervised release.  It adopted the government’s 
restitution calculations and ordered that Shibley pay $1,438,000 in restitution.
Shibley requests that this panel review his claim de novo.  This court 
reviews the district court’s valuation of a restitution amount de novo.  United
2
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 184     Filed 02/28/23     Page 2 of 5

States v. Carter, 742 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir. 2014).  The government contends that 
we should apply plain error review because Shibley did not object to the district 
court’s restitution calculation at sentencing.  E.g., United States v. Bright, 353 F.3d 
1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2004).  Because we would affirm the district court under 
either plain error or de novo review, we refrain from deciding which standard 
applies.  United States v. Davis, 706 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013).
“Forfeiture and restitution are separate components of many criminal 
sentences.”  Carter, 742 F.3d at 446.  While restitution provides compensation to 
victims in order to make them whole, the purpose of forfeiture is punitive.  E.g., 
Davis, 706 F.3d at 1083–84.  The district court ordered restitution under the 
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), which provides that “the [district] 
court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim’s 
losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic 
circumstances of the defendant.”  18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A).  The MVRA’s 
language is mandatory—the district court does not have discretion in reducing 
restitution when, as here, sentencing for offenses to which the MVRA applies.  The 
parties do not contest that the district court calculated restitution based on the “full 
amount” of the lenders’ losses under the MVRA.  Id.  The district court properly 
based its calculation on the unrecovered funds that the lenders had transferred to
3
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 184     Filed 02/28/23     Page 3 of 5

Shibley’s bank accounts, $1,438,000.  Shibley does not have the “right to a credit 
against a restitution order equal to any part of the amount forfeited.”  Carter, 742 
F.3d at 441, 446.  The district court thus did not err in declining to reduce 
restitution by the amount that Shibley forfeited to the government.  Bright, 353 
F.3d at 1120.
The victimized lenders have not yet recovered any money.  At oral 
argument, the government represented to us that the prosecutors in this case will 
seek approval from the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section
(“MLARS”)  to transfer the forfeited funds to the lenders under the Department of 
Justice’s restoration process.  See also Rule 28(j) letter in United States v. Shibley, 
Nos. 22-30043 & 22-30113, Feb. 21, 2023, ECF No. 39.  Under the Department of 
Justice Asset Forfeiture Policy, once MLARS approves the transfer, it notifies the 
prosecutors and the property custodian, who “will then transfer the net forfeited 
proceeds of all assets in  the case or related cases to the clerk of court for 
distribution pursuant to the restitution order.”  Department of Justice Asset 
Forfeiture Policy Manual, ch. 14, § B,
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-afmls/file/839521/download.  Thus, while the 
district court did not have the authority to reduce Shibley’s restitution obligation at 
the time of sentencing, that obligation will decrease if and when the government
4
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 184     Filed 02/28/23     Page 4 of 5

transfers the forfeited funds to the lenders.
AFFIRMED.
5
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 184     Filed 02/28/23     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.184.0.pdf

Size

95,391 bytes

SHA-256

0975a4e6ffd159d223827ea77209a54ba7fe0f37a4efd87a499d99cc6637b934

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.184.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)