United States v. Levelle Joseph Harris — Order (M.D. Fla., Document 54)

Summary

An Order in United States of America v. Levelle Joseph Harris, 5:22-cr-29-GAP-PRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, filed November 22, 2023 as Document 54, on Harris's motion about an alleged overpayment of restitution. Harris pled guilty to 14 counts of wire fraud, and the judgment included a $1,283,029.81 forfeiture order, a $1,400.00 special assessment and $1,283,029.81 in restitution. The order states that the United States has collected approximately $833,374.57 in net proceeds of forfeited assets, but a request to the Department of Justice to use those funds for restitution to the Small Business Administration has not been granted. The court clarifies that restitution and forfeiture are distinct and denies a refund, citing a restitution balance of $1,256,420.75 as of November 13, 2023.

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 5:22-cr-00029-GAP-PRL Document 54 Filed 11/22/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 267




                     IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                                OCALA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
     Plaintiff,

v.                                                                       5:22-cr-29-GAP-PRL

LEVELLE JOSEPH HARRIS,
     Defendant.
___________________________________/

                                            ORDER

       This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for court intervention regarding

his alleged overpayment of restitution. (Doc. 49). The United States has filed a response.

(Doc. 53). As discussed below, Defendant’s motion (Doc. 49) is granted to the extent that the

Court offers clarification of Defendant’s financial obligations under the judgment. However,

Defendant’s request for a refund is denied because he has not paid the Court-ordered

restitution.

       I.      Background

       Defendant pled guilty to 14 counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. (Doc.

29). The Court accepted Defendant’s plea and adjudicated him guilty. (Doc. 35). Before he

was indicted, the United States filed a civil forfeiture action against assets that were directly

traceable to the fraud for which he was later charged. United States v. Real Property Located at

3124 Cherokee Road, Saint Cloud, Florida 34772, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-205-WWB-EJK. In this

proceeding, Defendant agreed to the civil or criminal forfeiture of the assets identified in the

civil case. (Doc. 42). The United States completed the forfeitures in the civil case and advised

that it would credit Defendant’s criminal order of forfeiture with the net proceeds obtained

from the forfeited assets. (Doc. 42 at n. 1 &2; Doc. 42-1). The Court then entered the
Case 5:22-cr-00029-GAP-PRL Document 54 Filed 11/22/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 268




$1,283,029.81 forfeiture order in this criminal case. (Doc. 43). The United States represents

that to date, it has collected approximately $833,374.57 in net proceeds of the forfeited assets.

The United States Attorney’s Office has requested approval from the Department of Justice

to use those funds to pay restitution, but the request remains pending.

       At sentencing, Defendant’s judgment included the $1,283,029.81 forfeiture order, as

well as a $1,400.00 special assessment (due immediately), and $1,283,029.81 in restitution.

(Doc. 45). The United States represents that it subsequently enforced its lien against a non-

forfeited real property, collecting $27,834.06 which was applied to the outstanding special

assessment and restitution. Thus, according to the United States, as of November 13, 2023,

Defendant’s restitution balance is $1,256,420.75.

       In the instant motion, Defendant seeks clarification as to his financial obligations

under the judgment. Defendant contends that at the time of sentencing he had already paid

back $1.16 million, and he believes that since then he has overpaid his restitution and the

special assessment.1 However, Defendant claims that he has received conflicting information

from his Case Manager at Montgomery Federal Prison Camp who has advised him that his

entire restitution obligation remains due, plus $1,275.00 of the special assessment.

       II.     Discussion

       Restitution and forfeiture serve distinct purposes. “While restitution seeks to make

victims whole by reimbursing them for their losses, forfeiture is meant to punish the defendant

by transferring his ill-gotten gains to the United States Department of Justice (DOC).” United

States v. Joseph, 743 F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 2014). A defendant is not entitled to offset the



1
 Defendant cites to the sentencing hearing transcript in which his counsel, Mr. Mandell, stated that
after another closing took place, he estimated that $1.16 million of the restitution obligation would
have been satisfied. (Doc. 48 at 21-22).

                                                  2
Case 5:22-cr-00029-GAP-PRL Document 54 Filed 11/22/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 269




amount of restitution owed to a victim by the value of the forfeited property to the

government. Id. This is the case even if the victim is a federal agency –like the Small Business

Administration in this case—because the Attorney General and other federal agencies are

distinct entities. Id. at 1356 (citing United States v. Taylor, 582 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 2009)

(because FEMA, victim of defendant’s fraud, and DOJ are distinct entities, award of

restitution to FEMA and criminal forfeiture order did not result in double recovery to United

States); United States v. Emerson, 128 F.3d 557, 567-68 (7th Cir. 1997) (United States Postal

Service is a distinct entity from the Department of Justice)).

       Nevertheless, while a defendant is not automatically entitled to credit his restitution

with the value of forfeited assets, the United States routinely seeks to return money to victims

through its administrative processes when a defendant does not have sufficient assets to satisfy

both a forfeiture order and a restation obligation. Here, the United States Attorney’s Office

represents that it has made a request to the Department of Justice to restore the forfeited assets

to return money to the Small Business Administration, the victim of Defendant’s fraud;

however, the request has not been granted. Thus, to date, the forfeited assets have not been

applied to satisfy Defendant’s restitution obligation. According to the United States, as of

November 13, 2023, Defendant’s restitution balance is $1,256,420.75. Defendant’s request

for a refund, therefore, is denied because there has been no overpayment.

       IT IS SO ORDERED in Ocala, Florida, on November 22, 2023.




Copies furnished to:

                                                3
Case 5:22-cr-00029-GAP-PRL Document 54 Filed 11/22/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 270




Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties




                                     4


File and source

File

54.pdf

Size

119,755 bytes

SHA-256

9692cf940a1954943590c76ff1d22a7b7e0267eba078f6daafd0898055e3d588

Our copy

54.pdf

Original

No public link identified.