Letter Requesting Permission to File Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to D. Minn — No. 0:25-cr-00356 (Dkt. 56, D. Minn.)

Summary

A letter filed April 16, 2026 as Doc. 56 in United States v. Mark Erjavec, Case 0:25-cr-00356-ECT-EMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, requesting permission under D. Minn. LR 7.1(j) to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's Order of April 15, 2026 [ECF No. 55]. It is submitted by David Madgett of Madgett Law, LLC as attorney for crime victim Beverly Thorne, identified as a non-party. The letter argues that the government proposes to collect restitution using funds traceable to her $1,500,000 loan to Mesaba Finance, cites 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2), Luis v. United States and Honeycutt v. United States, and notes the 72-hour mandamus period under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3).

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

         CASE 0:25-cr-00356-ECT-EMB         Doc. 56         Filed 04/16/26         Page 1 of 2


                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                           )   Judge Eric C. Tostrud
                                                         Magistrate Judge Elizabeth M. Bacon
                                                     )
              Plaintiff,                             )   CASE NO. 0:25-cr-00356-ECT-EMB
                                                     )
       v.                                            )        LETTER REQUESTING
                                                     )        PERMISSION TO FILE
 MARK ERJAVEC                                        )        MOTION FOR
                                                     )        RECONSIDERATION
              Defendant.                             )        PURSUANT TO D. MINN.
                                                     )        LR 7.1(j)
                                                     )

      Pursuant to D. Minn. LR 7.1(j), non-party Beverly Thorne respectfully requests
permission to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Order of April 15, 2026
[ECF No. 55]. Compelling circumstances warrant reconsideration because the Order
rests on a misapprehension of Ms. Thorne’s claim.

I. The Order Addresses the Wrong Harm
      The Order concludes that Ms. Thorne “has not shown she was directly or
proximately harmed by any of the offenses charged” because “Mr. Erjavec is charged
with defrauding the United States, not Ms. Thorne.” ECF No. 55 at 2. Ms. Thorne does
not contend she was the target of the EIDL/PPP fraud in Counts 1–5. Her claim is that
the government proposes to collect restitution for its own losses using funds traceable
to her $1,500,000 loan to Mesaba Finance.

      The FBI confirmed that Ms. Thorne’s wire transfers were among the only funds
Mesaba Finance actually received. ECF No. 51 ¶¶ 11–13; ECF No. 52 ¶ 15. The Indictment
alleges Mesaba Finance had “no significant sources of income” outside EIDL proceeds
(Indictment ¶ 19). If her loan was the only real money flowing through the entity, any
assets recovered from Mesaba Finance are substantially likely to be her money—not
criminal proceeds. The harm is not the wire fraud itself; it is the government paying
itself restitution with a third party’s funds.

II. Ms. Thorne’s Harm Flows from the Charged Scheme

                                                 1
        CASE 0:25-cr-00356-ECT-EMB        Doc. 56   Filed 04/16/26   Page 2 of 2



      Wire fraud under § 1343 is a scheme-based offense. Under the MVRA, a “victim”
includes any person “directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course
of the scheme.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2). The Indictment describes Erjavec re-
establishing Mesaba Finance on July 17, 2017 (¶ 26)—the same entity he used to solicit
Ms. Thorne’s $1.5 million loan in 2023. But for the charged scheme, Mesaba Finance
would have remained dissolved (¶ 14) and could not have been used to induce her loan.

III. Third-Party Property Cannot Satisfy Government Restitution
      In Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016), the Supreme Court held that the
government’s restitution interest does not extend to untainted assets. In Honeycutt v.
United States, 581 U.S. 443 (2017), the Court held forfeiture under § 853 is limited to
property the defendant acquired as crime proceeds. Ms. Thorne’s loan funds are not
EIDL/PPP fraud proceeds—they are a third party’s property.

IV. The Mandamus Clock Is Running
      Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), Ms. Thorne has 72 hours from denial of her motion
to petition the Eighth Circuit for mandamus. She seeks reconsideration before resorting
to that remedy but notes that delay may necessitate a mandamus filing. For these
reasons, Ms. Thorne respectfully requests permission to file a motion for
reconsideration, or in the alternative, asks this Court to treat this letter as the motion
and reconsider its Order.


 Respectfully submitted,           MADGETT LAW, LLC
                                   s/ David Madgett
                                   MN License No. 390494
                                   IDS Center Suite 1650
                                   80 South 8th Street
                                   Minneapolis, MN 55402
                                   Telephone: 612-470-6529
                                   Email: dmadgett@madgettlaw.com
                                   Attorney for Crime Victim Beverly Thorne.




                                            2


File and source

File

56.pdf

Size

119,907 bytes

SHA-256

eea9fc2cc4ad20c6a6b5a0c47738c11cbbc877aed93940a77585a8b6487a3bd1

Our copy

56.pdf

Original

No public link identified.