Objection to Presentence Investigation Report — United States v. Lewis Reed (Dkt. 94, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

The defendant's objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, filed November 22, 2022 as Doc. 94 in United States v. Lewis Reed, Case No. 4:22-cr-297-2-SRC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. Reed objects to Paragraphs 71 and 135 of the report, which state that he owes $18,500 in restitution to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for investigative funds spent in the sting operation. The filing argues that under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) restitution is due only to victims for their losses, and that the FBI is not a victim, citing United States v. Cook, United States v. Gibbens, United States v. Gall and United States v. Salcedo-Lopez. It states that the parties will agree to a fine equal to the amount of the bribes Reed received. It is signed /s/ by Adam D. Fein.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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-00297-SRC Doc. #: 94 Filed: 11/22/22 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 461




                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             ESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                   EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         )
                                                  )
       Plaintiff,                                 )
                                                  )
v.                                                ) Case No.: 4:22-cr-297-2-SRC
                                                  )
LEWIS REED,                                       )
                                                  )
           Defendant.                             )

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT

       COMES NOW Defendant, Lewis Reed, by and through counsel, and files the following

objection to the Presentence Investigation Report:

Objection 1, Paragraphs 71 and 135:

       Paragraphs 71 and 135 claim Reed owes $18,500 in restitution to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) for investigative funds expended in the instant sting operation.

       District courts must “order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim’s

losses….” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). But restitution is due only to “victims” and only for their

“losses.” Here, the FBI is not “victim,” and it did not suffer a “loss” in connection with the

investigative funds it expended. See United States v. Cook, 406 F.3d 485, 489 (7th Cir. 2005)

(noting “buy money was an investigatory expense rather than property taken from, or damage to

the property of, a victim of the defendant’s crime”); United States v. Gibbens, 25 F.3d 28, 25 (1st

Cir. 1994) (“To sum up, nothing in the legislative history of either the organic Act or its

amendments indicates that losses incurred in government sting operations should be subject to

recoupment under the VWPA.”); United States v. Gall, 21 F.3d 107, 112 (6th Cir. 1994)

(observing “investigative costs are not losses, but voluntary expenditures by the government for



                                                 1
 Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 94 Filed: 11/22/22 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 462




the procurement of evidence.”); United States v. Salcedo-Lopez, 907 F.2d 98-99 (9th Cir. 1990)

(holding “[t]he costs of investigating and prosecuting an offense are not direct losses for which

restitution may be ordered,” and “the government is not a victim under the [Victim and Witness

Protection Act]” when it gets the evidence for which it pays).

       The FBI is thus not entitled to restitution in this case. That said, the parties will agree to a

fine equal to the amount of the bribes Reed received and notify this Court of that amount prior to

sentencing.




                                               Respectfully submitted,

                                       By:     /s/ Adam D. Fein

                                               Adam D. Fein, # 52255 MO
                                               Attorney for Defendant
                                               120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130
                                               Clayton, Missouri 63105
                                               (314) 862-4332
                                               afein@rsflawfirm.com




                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that on November 22, 2022, the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon Mr.
Hal Goldsmith, Assistant United States Attorney.




                                                  2


File and source

File

94-objection-to-presentence-investigation-report-by-lewis-reed.pdf

Size

510,107 bytes

SHA-256

228fb01351d14b5ba54c5c13440a8e6029e21a7a47c94ddbd5c9ef82d14da7cc

Our copy

94-objection-to-presentence-investigation-report-by-lewis-reed.pdf

Original

archive.org