United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Benjamin Bejar and Thomas M. Hollenhorst, Office of the
United States Attorney, for Plaintiff United States of
Derrick Lynch, No. 18165-041, United States
Penitentiary-Terre Haute, Pro Se.
RICHARD NELSON United States District Judge
above matter comes before the Court on Defendant Derrick
Lynch's Pro Se Motion to Stay Restitution Orders [Doc.
No. 314], filed on December 28, 2016. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court denies Defendant's motion.
Government's Indictment in this case charged Lynch and
his co-defendant Marvin Spencer with robbing a Pawn America
store in Roseville, Minnesota, taking approximately $78,
350.50 worth of jewelry, and using actual and threatened
force, violence, and fear of injury to accomplish the
robbery. (Indictment, Counts 1 & 3 [Doc. No. 20].)
December 17, 2014, Defendant pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 3
of the Indictment, which charged him with interference with
commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2
and 1951, and using and discharging a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2 and 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). (Minutes of 12/17/14
Hearing [Doc. No. 42].) And, relevant here, Lynch agreed
that, aiding and abetting each other, he and his co-defendant
had taken approximately $58, 350.50 worth of
jewelry. (Plea Agmt. at 2 [Doc. No. 43].)
to Lynch's sentencing hearing and co-defendant
Spencer's trial, the Indictment was superseded to reflect
that approximately $58, 358.50 worth of jewelry was stolen
from Pawn America. (Superseding Indictment, Count 1 [Doc. No.
93].) The Government established the amount of loss at the
trial of Lynch's co-defendant. (See Gov't
27, 2016, this Court sentenced Lynch to a 180-month term of
imprisonment, consisting of 60 months on Count 1, and 120
months on Count 3, to be served consecutively. (Sentencing J.
at 2 [Doc. No. 247].) In addition, Defendant was ordered to
pay a total of $59, 171.43 in restitution. (Id. at
5.) Specifically, the restitution amount assessed the
following: $15, 000 to Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, $43,
350.50 to Hanover Insurance Company, and $820.93 to the
Minnesota Crime Victims Reparations Board. (Id.)
Lynch did not contest restitution in his sentencing position
papers or at his sentencing.
December 28, 2016, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking
a stay of the restitution order. While Lynch concedes his
culpability as an “aider and abetter” of the
charges to which he pleaded guilty, he argues that the Court
erred in assessing restitution. (Def.'s Mot. at 4.) Lynch
appears to argue that the restitution order was not supported
by witness testimony or sworn statements. (Id.)
Rather, he contends that there were no specific findings,
“asides [sic] from smashing the display case holding
the aforesaid jewelry, that [D]efendant possessed the jewelry
which his co-defendant placed in a duffle bag and carried
away.” (Id. at 5.)
Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”)
provides that a sentencing court may order a defendant who
commits a qualifying offense to make restitution to the
victim. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1).
appears to argue that there was no finding that he ever
possessed the jewelry that was stolen from Pawn America.
(Def.'s Mot. at 3.) His argument lacks merit. In his plea
agreement, Lynch expressed his understanding that §
3663A of the MVRA applied and that the Court was required to
order him to make restitution to the victims of his crimes.
(Plea Agmt. ¶ 10.) At the change of plea hearing, and as
set forth in his plea agreement, Lynch admitted to entering
Pawn America with co-defendant Spencer, who discharged his
weapon; Lynch then smashed the glass display cases and
removed the jewelry, placing it in a duffel bag. (Plea Agmt.
¶ 2.) Lynch agreed that he and Spencer left the store
with the stolen jewelry, got into a vehicle, and departed.
(Id.) While Lynch now contends that Spencer
ultimately retained the duffel bag, (Def.'s Mot. at 3),
the fact remains that Lynch pleaded guilty to taking the
jewelry and leaving the store with Spencer. (Plea Agmt ¶
2.) Where more than one defendant contributes to the loss of
a victim, the court may make each defendant liable for
payment of the full amount of restitution. 18 U.S.C. §
3664(h). The Eighth Circuit has thus observed that
restitution is authorized “‘for all of the losses
that [the defendant] caused, not simply the losses that wound
up in [his] own pocket.'” United States v.
Moten, 551 F.3d 763, 768 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting
United States v. Hunt, 521 F.3d 636, 648 (6th Cir.
Court likewise rejects Defendant's argument concerning a
lack of findings to support the award of restitution. The
government proved the amount of loss at the trial of
Lynch's co-defendant. As noted, Lynch agreed in his
change of plea hearing, to having taken approximately $58,
350.50 worth of jewelry. Accordingly, restitution in that
amount was properly ...