In United States v. Stein, No. 18-13762 (July 13, 2020) (Marcus, Luck, Ed Carnes), the Court re-affirmed the defendant’s fraud convictions and affirmed an award of restitution.
In a previous appeal, the Eleventh Circuit remanded for the district court consider to reconsider its loss finding with respect to restitution. The Court held that, on remand, the district court relied on sufficient evidence to establish causation, and the court was permitted to rely on the government’s expert witness.
The Court declined to consider the defendant’s Brady/Giglio challenges to this convictions, or his challenges to the forfeiture order, because those challenges were outside the scope of the limited remand and could have been raised in the initial appeal. The Court found no exception to either the mandate rule or the law of the case doctrine. As for the convictions, the Court found that the evidence was neither newly discovered nor material. As for the forfeiture order, the Court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to raise a new argument just because the judgment was amended for unrelated restitution purposes, and the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Honeycutt dealt with a distinguishable forfeiture statute.