Memorandum and Order, U.S. v. Terrell Alexander, No. 4:22-cr-00169, Dkt. 130 (E.D. Mo.)

Summary

A Memorandum and Order in United States of America v. Terrell Alexander, No. 4:22-CR-00169-JAR-1, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Document 130, denying five motions by self-represented Defendant Terrell Alexander that challenge the financial parts of the sentence. It recounts that Alexander pled guilty in November 2022 to 18 counts of a 23-count indictment tied to fraudulent business loans through the Small Business Administration, and was sentenced to 65 months in prison, later reduced to 57 months, with restitution of $511,600. The court rejects the claim that Ellingburg v. United States makes the restitution order unconstitutional, and denies the stay motions as moot. It also refuses an accounting and refund of $216,066.31 seized beyond the restitution, finding that forfeiture and restitution are separate remedies and the balance remains forfeited.

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: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR        Doc. #: 130 Filed: 03/26/26            Page: 1 of 5 PageID #:
                                              562



                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                   EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                          )
                                                   )
        Plaintiff,                                 )
                                                   )
        v.                                         )       No. 4:22-CR-00169-JAR-1
                                                   )
TERRELL ALEXANDER,                                 )
                                                   )
        Defendant.                                 )

                                MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

        This matter is before the Court on five related motions filed by self-represented

Defendant Terrell Alexander challenging the financial components of his sentence. For the

reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied.

        Background

        In November 2022, Defendant Alexander pled guilty to 18 counts of a 23-count

indictment on charges of wire fraud, identity theft, unlawful transfer of identification documents,

and theft of government property in connection with multiple fraudulent business loans he

obtained through the Small Business Administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. 30).

In March 2023, the Court sentenced Alexander to a total of 65 months in prison,1 followed by

five years of supervised release. (Doc. 48). The Court also imposed restitution of $511,600 plus a

special assessment of $1,800. In September 2023, the Court entered an order of forfeiture

identifying 24 bank accounts holding $725,836.82 and a cryptocurrency account of unspecified

value. (Doc. 61). The record reflects that those assets, ultimately totaling $729,466.31, were


1
        In August 2024, the Court reduced Alexander’s sentence to 57 months pursuant to Amendment
821 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. (Doc. 97). According to the Bureau of Prisons inmate locator,
Alexander’s projected release date is August 2, 2026.

                                                  1
    Case: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR          Doc. #: 130 Filed: 03/26/26              Page: 2 of 5 PageID #:
                                                563



disposed on October 13, 2023, to be held pending restitution. (Doc. 64-88).2

        In February and March 2026, Alexander filed the instant motions and related

supplements seeking to (1) vacate the Court’s restitution order as unconstitutional (Doc. 116,

124); (2) stay enforcement of the order pending a ruling on the merits (Doc. 115, 123); and (3)

review the Government’s accounting records for overpayment (Doc. 118, 120, 128). The

Government timely filed a response addressing all five motions. (Doc. 127).

        Restitution Order

        In the principal motion, Alexander contends that the Court’s restitution order is

unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ellingburg v. United States,

146 S. Ct. 564 (2026), holding that restitution constitutes criminal punishment for purposes of

the Ex Post Facto Clause. Alexander asserts that Ellingburg overturned decades of precedent

treating restitution as a civil remedy such that now the factual basis for restitution must satisfy

Sixth Amendment requirements. Specifically, facts supporting a criminal penalty must be

submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466, 490 (2000).

        As a preliminary matter, post-judgment motions seeking to vacate a sentence cannot be

brought in a closed criminal case but instead must be brought in a separate civil action under 28

U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Mills, No. 4:04-CR-00060-SEP, 2025 WL 2417739, at *1 (E.D.

Mo. Aug. 21, 2025). Alexander’s motions fail on that basis alone.

        Even entertaining the merits, in the short time since Ellingburg was decided, another

district court has rejected Alexander’s theory, reasoning that Apprendi applies to “determinate”



2
         The Court notes a typographical discrepancy regarding the Electro Savings account ending in
5206. The forfeiture order reflects a value of $20,506.23 (Doc. 61 at 3 ¶ w), but the Marshals’ return
reflects a value of $20,806.23 (Doc. 66). This discrepancy is immaterial to the Court’s disposition here.

                                                     2
 Case: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR          Doc. #: 130 Filed: 03/26/26           Page: 3 of 5 PageID #:
                                             564



punishment (i.e., having discernable limits) but not to restitution, which has no statutory

maximum. United States v. Zafaranchi, 2026 WL 658435, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2026).

This Court agrees. “The ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a

judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the

defendant.” Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004) (italics added). Eighth Circuit

precedent instructs that Apprendi and Blakely don’t prohibit judicial fact-finding for restitution

orders (as opposed to prison sentences) because there is no statutory maximum for restitution.

United States v. Carruth, 418 F.3d 900, 904 (8th Cir. 2005).

       Moreover, Alexander admitted in his plea agreement that he unlawfully collected over

$740,000 through his criminal conduct. (Doc. 30 at 8). The presentencing investigation report

(PSR) itemized ten fraudulent loan applications totaling roughly $1 million, with disbursements

of $511,600, the amount of the restitution order. (Doc. 37 at 10). Alexander accepted the factual

representations set forth in the PSR, explicitly confirming that he had no objections. (Doc. 45).

Thus, even if Apprendi and Blakely did apply to restitution (which they don’t), Alexander still

wouldn’t be entitled to relief here because he admitted the facts supporting the Court’s restitution

order. “[T]he Sixth Amendment was not written for the benefit of those who choose to forgo its

protection.” Blakely 542 U.S. at 312.

       For the foregoing reasons, Alexander’s motions to vacate the Court’s restitution order

will be denied, and his corresponding motions to stay enforcement will be denied as moot.

       Forfeiture Order

       In two other motions, Alexander notes that the total value of funds seized by the

Government ($729,466.31) exceeds the amount he owed for restitution and the special

assessment ($511.600 + $1,800 = $513,400). Alexander asks the Court to order a financial



                                                 3
 Case: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR            Doc. #: 130 Filed: 03/26/26            Page: 4 of 5 PageID #:
                                               565



accounting and a refund of the surplus seized ($216,066.31). The Government confirms that

Alexander has paid the money judgment and has a $0 balance, but it fails to address Alexander’s

real inquiry.

        Alexander mistakenly believes that he is entitled to recover the $216,066.31 seized in

excess of his restitution obligation because he conflates forfeiture and restitution. They are

separate remedies. Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A,

aims to compensate victims in the full amount of their losses. United States v. Luna, 968 F.3d

922, 931 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A)). By contrast, forfeiture is intended to

dispossess a defendant of all proceeds obtained as a result of the offense. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C.

§ 982). Pursuant to section 8(f) of the plea agreement, Alexander agreed to pay full restitution to

the victims of his offenses. (Doc. 30 at 15.) Pursuant to section 8(g), he forfeited all right, title,

and interest in seized assets. (Id.) Section 8(g) specifically contemplates a forfeiture judgment of

approximately $740,000, to be determined at the time of sentencing. (Id. at 16). The Court’s

subsequent forfeiture order applied to all 25 accounts containing proceeds obtained as a result of

the offenses. (Doc. 61). Alexander’s restitution obligation was satisfied from those funds, but the

balance remains forfeited.

        For these reasons, Alexanders motions seeking an accounting and refund will be denied.

        Accordingly,

        IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motions to vacate the Court’s restitution

order are DENIED. (Doc. 116, 124).

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motions to stay enforcement of the

Court’s restitution order pending a ruling on the merits of his motion to vacate are DENIED as

moot. (Doc. 115, 123).



                                                   4
 Case: 4:22-cr-00169-JAR        Doc. #: 130 Filed: 03/26/26   Page: 5 of 5 PageID #:
                                           566




       IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for review and modification of the

restitution order is DENIED. (Doc. 118).

       Dated this 26th day of March 2025.



                                            JOHN A. ROSS
                                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                            5


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.moed.194679.130.0.pdf

Size

194,888 bytes

SHA-256

c25c7f3a1a6d83e04b625719a26464e7b916b0d753fd2522e9028b5db0a22c1d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.moed.194679.130.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com