Brief in Support of Defendant's Restitution Request — United States v. Antonio D. Hosey (N.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00396-LMM · Doc. 27 · 2022-11-30 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
  
) 
  
) 
v. 
 
 
 
  
)     CRIMINAL ACTION 
  
)     NO. 1:20-CR-00396-LMM 
ANTONIO HOSEY 
 
) 
____________________________________) 
 
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RESTITUTION REQUEST 
 
 
COMES NOW, Defendant, Antonio Hosey, by and through undersigned 
counsel and files this memorandum to address the grounds supporting his request 
that the Court apportion restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h) and order him 
to pay $33,332. 
Background 
On November 19, 2020, Mr. Hosey entered a negotiated guilty plea to a 
criminal information charging him with one count of conspiring to defraud the 
United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. (Doc. 9).   He was sentenced on 
November 16, 2022 to a period of incarceration of a year and a day to be followed 
by three years of supervised release. (Doc. 24).  At that time, the Court ordered Mr. 
Hosey to file a brief within fourteen days addressing his restitution request. (Doc. 
23).   
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 27     Filed 11/30/22     Page 1 of 4

2 
 
Argument 
Mr. Hosey asks this Court to order him to pay restitution in an amount of 
$33,332 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h) which allows the Court to apportion 
restitution liability among multiple defendants.  “If the court finds that more than 1 
defendant has contributed to the loss of a victim, the court may make each 
defendant liable for payment of the full amount of restitution or may apportion 
liability among the defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim’s 
loss and economic circumstances of each defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h).  The 
Eleventh Circuit has reiterated that § 3664(h) gives sentencing courts discretion to 
apportion restitution based on an assessment of defendants’ relative participation in 
a criminal conspiracy.  See United States v. Jeune, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 25102, 
45-46 (11th Cir. 2021) (unpublished).  While this Court is not obligated to 
apportion restitution, the facts and circumstances of this case support Mr. Hosey’s 
request.   
At Mr. Hosey’s sentencing hearing, the Court overruled the government’s 
objections as to loss amount and determined that the total loss attributable to Mr. 
Hosey was $463,779.79. (Doc. 23 and PSR at ⁋ 37).  This amount includes of all 
the checks that were cashed by Mr. Hosey and those that he recruited.  This loss is 
also attributable to at least eight other individuals—seven business owners and 
Rodericque Thompson, the leader of the conspiracy.  Because more than one 
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 27     Filed 11/30/22     Page 2 of 4

3 
 
individual is responsible for the loss amount, the court may apportion restitution 
liability among the defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim’s 
loss. The Court may also consider the economic circumstances of each defendant.   
Here the court should apportion the loss based on the limited role that Mr. 
Hosey played in the overall conspiracy.  He only made $33,332 total. (PSR at ⁋ 
32).  The business owners that applied for and received fraudulent loans stood to 
profit $150,000 a piece—half the amount of each PPP loan.  This is 4.5 times more 
than Mr. Hosey received.  Mr. Thompson stood to profit well over a million 
dollars.  Mr. Hosey’s limited role and responsibility in the conspiracy is 
demonstrated by the very limited profit that he made. 
This was Mr. Thompson’s scheme along with the business owners.  Mr. 
Hosey was never involved in the fraudulent applications for PPP loans and did not 
receive a loan himself.  He was simply a means to allow the other co-conspirators 
to access the funds from the PPP loans.  If Mr. Hosey is ordered to pay 
$463,777.79 in restitution as requested by the government, it would be more than 
double what any of the business owners were required to pay—despite the fact that 
the business owners made 4.5 more money off of this scheme than Mr. Hosey.  
The government’s request would require Mr. Hosey to pay more restitution than 
any other member of this conspiracy other than Mr. Thompson.  That creates a 
patently unfair result.  
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 27     Filed 11/30/22     Page 3 of 4

4 
 
Lastly, § 3664(h) allows the Court to consider the economic circumstances 
of each defendant.  The PSR indicates that Mr. Hosey’s total net worth is only 
$14,378.21. (PSR at ⁋ 90).  His limited financial means will be further reduced by 
the prison sentence imposed in this case.  While Mr. Hosey is not privy to his co-
conspirators’ financial information, it is clear that his own economic circumstances 
do not allow him to reasonably repay $463,777.79 when he only received $33,332 
from the scheme.   
Conclusion 
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hosey asks that this Court exercise its 
discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h) to apportion restitution and order him to pay 
$33,332.  
 
 
Dated:  This 30th day of November, 2022. 
Respectfully submitted,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Caitlyn Wade  
 
 
 
 
 
 
State Bar No. 259114 
Attorney for Mr. Hosey 
 
FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC. 
Suite 1500, Centennial Tower 
101 Marietta Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 
(404) 688-7530 
Caitlyn_Wade@fd.org 
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 27     Filed 11/30/22     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.282638.27.0.pdf

Size

164,988 bytes

SHA-256

6d03a385c6d3d31252ee1cf260da742fc34fba8c64326898e58243f5146296bb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.282638.27.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)