United States District Court, D. Nevada
OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING CLARIFICATION OF
Clerk of Court's finance department requires
clarification of restitution orders in the above-referenced
cases before it can begin processing payments to any
identified victims. While the defendants were charged in
separate cases, some of their conduct relates to the same
real property. After restitution was ordered, the Court's
Finance Department created separate restitution accounts for
each victim which revealed inconsistencies. These must be
resolved before defendants' payments can be properly
first clarification required pertains to Defendant Mark
Gonzalez's Judgment of Conviction, (No.
2:12-cr-446-GMN-VCF, ECF No. 18) ("Gonzalez
J."). In the Judgment, Defendant Gonzalez's
restitution was not ordered joint and several as to any other
defendants. When Defendant Wagner's Judgment of
Conviction, (No. 2:10-cr-399-MMD-GWF, ECF No. 282)
("Wagner J."), was entered, however, Defendant
Wagner's restitution was ordered to be paid jointly and
severally with Defendant Gonzalez. The Court's finance
office cannot allocate or disperse any restitution amount
collected until this apparent inconsistency is addressed.
Therefore, the U.S. Attorney is required to clarify whether
or not the restitution amounts listed for Defendants Gonzalez
and Wagner are, in fact, joint and several, The Court seeks
an additional clarification in regards to Defendant
Gonzalez's Judgment of Conviction, The Judgment
identifies CitiMortgage as a victim with a loss of $439, 141,
34, However, on the victim spreadsheet provided to the
Court's finance department by the U.S. Attorney's
Office, there are no properties listed for CitiMortgage. It
appears the true victims may have been Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae for this Defendant (if the Judgment amounts originally
assigned to CitiMortgage were for Fannie Mae properties).
Based on the U.S. Attorney's spreadsheet, the total loss
amount for Freddie Mac is $694, 616.00, and the total loss
amount for Fannie Mae is $1, 079, 890.72. Therefore, the U.S.
Attorney is required to clarify: (1) whether the restitution
amounts are joint and several; and (2) whether CitiMortgage
is accurately identified as a victim or if the victims are
only Freddie Mac with a loss of $ 694, 616.00 and Fannie Mae
with a loss of $1, 079, 890.72.
property at 6789 Kostner Street is listed as a victim as to
Defendants Edmond, (see J., No. 2:10-cr-320-KJD-PAL,
ECF No. 30) ("Edmond J."), Enloe, (see Am.
J., No. 2:10-cr-319-JCM~GWF, ECF No. 50) ("Enloe Am.
J."), Gonzalez, (see Gonzalez J, ), Ockunzzi
(see J., Case No, 2:10-cr-272~LDG-GWF, ECF No. 44)
("Ockunzzi J."), Rozzen (see J., No.
2:10-cr-305-RLH-PAT, ECF No. 41) ("Rozzen J."),
Wagner (see J., No. 2:10-cr-399-MMD-GWF, ECF No,
282) ("Wagner J, "), and Wong Culotta (see
J., No. 2:10-cr-300-JCM-PAL, ECF No. 22) ("Wong Culotta
J."). On the victim spreadsheet provided by the U.S..
Attorney's Office, there are two separate amounts for
this property, one loss amount totaling $219, 273 and another
totaling $175, 245.42. Therefore, Defendants Emond, Ockunzzi,
Wong Culotta, and Rozzen appear to be responsible joint and
severally for the $219, 723 amount (Defendant Rozzen's
portion of which is $186, 796.56). Additionally, there
appears to be a separate joint and several amount of
restitution ordered to be paid by Defendants Gonzalez and
Wagner for the $ 175, 245.42 amount. However, in the original
spreadsheet provided by the U.S. Attorney, Defendant Enloe is
listed as being ordered to pay $50, 172.54 for the same
property. This same amount is owed on a different property on
the same street, 6765 Kostner Street, which also identifies
the victim as Fannie Mae. Accordingly, it appears that two
separate Joint and Several accounts are needed for Fannie Mae
on the 6789 Kostner Street property, and Defendant Enloe
alone will owe Fannie Mae a restitution amount for the 6765
Kostner Street property. The U.S. Attorney is only required
to confirm whether this interpretation above is accurate, as
it would not change the victim's or Defendants'
next clarification required pertains to defendants Enloe,
(see Enloe Am. J.), Rozzen, (see Rozzen
J.), Wagner, (see Wagner J.), Wong Culotta,
(see Wong Culotta J.), Akoopie, (see
Judgment, No. 2:10-cr-304-ECR, ECF No. 19), Edmond,
(see Edmond J.), and Antonio, (see Am. J.,
No. 2:10-cr-322-PMP-GWF, ECF No. 27). The properties at 8016
Crazy Train and 3928 Maldive appear twice on the U.S.
Attorney's spreadsheet for the exact same amounts. For
some Defendants this amount is listed as being owed to
CitiMortgage, yet for other defendants it is listed as being
owed to Fannie Mae. The U.S. Attorney is required to verify
the total loss amount for these two properties and to
identify the victim(s) for these two properties.
the same verification is required with regards to the 9132
Fusion Drive property. This property pertains to defendants
Enloe, (see Enloe Am. J."), Rozzen
(see Rozzen J.), Wagner (see Wagner Am, J,
), Wong Culotta (see Wong Culotta J.), Edmond
(see Edmond J.), Gonzalez (see Gonzalez
J.)3 and Morales (see Judgment, No.
2:10-cr-3I7-LDG-RJJ, ECF No, 20). According to the victim
spreadsheet, Edmond owes $206, 531.48 individually to Fannie
Mae, and Enloe, Gonzalez, Rozzen, Wagner, and Wong Culotta
owe a joint and several total to Fannie Mae of $241, 762.92
(for a total loss to Fannie Mae of $448, 294.40). On the
victim spreadsheet, it shows that Wagner owes this exact same
amount of $206, 532, 48 joint and severally to the FDIC for
what used to be PMC Bancorp. Morales also owes $248, 538.00
to the FDIC for the same property. Fhe Court requires
clarification for the total loss amount for this property and
identification of the victim(s) for this property.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the U.S.
Attorney's Office shall provide clarification of the
above-identified restitution issues no later than Friday,
April 20, 2018. The response shall be filed in each of the
cases listed in the caption of this order.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants will have 14
days to file any replies to the Government's response.
GLORTAM. NAVARRO Chief Judge, United States District Court,
LLOYD D. GEORGE United States District Court Judge, JAMES C.
MAHAN United States District Court Judge, KENT J. DAWSON
United States District Court Judge, MIRANDA M. DU United
States District Court
 In the interest of efficiency, the
Court hereinafter refers to each Defendant using only their