From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Hatfield

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Sep 27, 2010
06-CR-0550 (JS) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2010)

Summary

finding that district court had authority to restrain defendant's funds as collateral for future restitution order

Summary of this case from United States v. Kelly

Opinion

06-CR-0550 (JS).

September 27, 2010

Richard Thomas Lunger, Jr., Esq., Christopher Allen Ott, Esq., Christopher Caffarone, Esq., James Halleron Knapp, Esq., James M. Miskiewicz, Esq., United States Attorneys Office, Central Islip, NY, Attorneys for Government.

Sandra Hatfield, Roland G. Riopelle, Esq., Maurice H. Sercarz, Esq., Sercarz Riopelle, LLP, New York, NY, David Brooks, John C. Meringolo, Esq., Meringolo and Associates, P.C., New York, NY, Zaki I. Tamir, Esq., Gofer Tamir and Assoc., New York, NY, James M. LaRossa, Esq., New York, NY, Kenneth Ravenell, Esq., William H. Murphy, Jr., Esq., The Murphy Firm, Baltimore, MD, Richard Ware Levitt, Esq., Yvonne Shivers, Esq., Law Offices of Richard W. Levitt, New York, NY, Roger V. Archibald, Esq., William C. Thompson, Esq., Brooklyn, NY, Attorneys for Defendants.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Mr. Brooks' motions to release restrained funds (Docket Nos. 1280, 1308, 1341) are DENIED. Even if, as Mr. Brooks claims, the Government is not entitled to forfeiture of all the assets currently under restraint, the Court has the authority to continue to restrain these assets "as collateral in anticipation of an Order of Restitution," which will be issued at sentencing.U.S. v. Numisgroup Intern. Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d 133, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2001). Indeed, restraining assets as collateral for restitution is particularly appropriate here, because, as Mr. Brooks represents, he "has virtually no assets at his disposal."Id. at 138; see Docket No. 1341 ("Mr. Brooks has depleted all funds available to pay for his ongoing defense").

In addition, the Clerk of the Court is directed to publish Docket No. 1341 on ECF and serve a copy on the Government. Mr. Brooks had no legitimate justification to file this motion ex parte, especially because it implicated the Government's vital interest in keeping Mr. Brooks' assets under restraint.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Central Islip, New York

September 27, 2010


Summaries of

U.S. v. Hatfield

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Sep 27, 2010
06-CR-0550 (JS) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2010)

finding that district court had authority to restrain defendant's funds as collateral for future restitution order

Summary of this case from United States v. Kelly
Case details for

U.S. v. Hatfield

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SANDRA HATFIELD and DAVID H. BROOKS…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Sep 27, 2010

Citations

06-CR-0550 (JS) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2010)

Citing Cases

United States v. Kumar

Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not directly confronted the question…

United States v. Kelly

Indeed, courts have issued restraining orders to secure funds in anticipation of restitution. See United…