United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove United States District Judge
Government has requested restitution for well over a hundred
victims of Defendant Ronnie C. Rodgers's conspiracy to
commit securities fraud. These requests include varying
degrees of evidentiary support for the loss amounts. While
the Court need not determine restitution by finding facts
beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court must determine a loss
amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Because some of
these requests are supported by sufficient evidence while
others are not, the Court GRANTS IN PART and
DENIES IN PART the Government's Motion
for Restitution. Mr. Rodgers is ordered to pay restitution in
the combined amount of $2, 180.562.17, as
further outlined below.
Ronnie Rodgers was charged on December 7, 2017 with one count
conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and securities
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343,
15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 240-10b-5. [R.
1.] According to the indictment, from 2007 through 2017, Mr.
Rodgers and his associates executed a scheme to sell oil and
gas leases in geographical areas where Mr. Rodgers knew the
leases would not produce enough oil or gas to provide a
return of the investments. See id.
jury returned a guilty verdict for conspiracy to commit mail
fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud. [R. 64.] To convict
Mr. Rodgers with mail or wire fraud, the jury was required to
find the development of or participation in a scheme to
defraud, that he used the mails or an interstate wire
communication in furtherance of the scheme, and that he
possessed “intent to deprive a victim of money or
property.” United States v. Ramer, 883 F.3d
659, 681 (6th Cir. 2018) (enumerating the elements of mail
fraud); United States v. Olive, 804 F.3d 747, 753
(6th Cir. 2015) (enumerating the elements of wire fraud and
noting, “Mail fraud has essentially the same elements
[as wire fraud] except that the use of the mails rather than
a wire is required.”). For the jury to convict Mr.
Rodgers of securities fraud, the jury had to find that he
used or employed a manipulative or deceptive device in
contravention of 17 C.F.R. § 240-10b-5 in connection
with the purchase or sale of a security. 15 U.S.C. §
78j(b). Accordingly, the jury had to determine that Mr.
Rodgers (1) employed a device, scheme, or artifice to
defraud, (2) made any untrue statement or omission of a
material fact, or (3) engaged in an act, practice, or course
of business, operating as a fraud or deceit. 17 C.F.R. §
240-10b-5. However, Mr. Rodgers was charged with
conspiracy to one of these things, and thus, the
jury only need to find that Mr. Rodgers joined in an
agreement to commit mail, wire, or securities fraud, and that
at least one person in the conspiracy committed an overt act
in support of the conspiracy. United States v.
Phillips, 872 F.3d 803, 806 (6th Cir. 2017).
Court sentenced Mr. Rodgers on January 9, 2019, to
forty-eight months imprisonment, followed by three years of
supervised release. [R. 88; R. 90.] Restitution was ordered,
but a specific calculation of restitution was deferred
pending briefing by both parties.Id. The United
States filed a motion for an award of restitution in the
total amount of $6, 874, 766.01, on January 25, 2019, which
included only a spreadsheet of the victims' alleged loss
amounts and lacked any evidence to support those requests.
[R. 97.] Mr. Rodgers made objections to a general award of
restitution but made no specific objections to requests by
each victim. [R. 101.] At a hearing held on February 20,
2019, the Court determined more evidence was needed to award
restitution and directed further briefing. [R. 103; R. 104.]
The United States has filed their supplementation under seal
[R. 116], and Mr. Rodgers has made his objections [R. 119.]
in this case is mandatory. The Mandatory Victims Restitution
Act (MVRA) requires Courts to order restitution when
sentencing defendants convicted of certain offenses. 18
U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). Included in these offenses are
crimes against property, including crimes involving fraud and
deceit. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii). When a defendant is
convicted of a conspiracy, a Court may calculate restitution
using “damage resulting from any conduct that was part
of the conspiracy and not just from specific conduct that met
the overt act requirement of the conspiracy
conviction.” United States v. Sawyer, 825 F.3d
287, 295 (6th Cir. 2016) (citations and quotations omitted).
Furthermore, if more than one defendant contributed to a
victim's losses, the Court is permitted to make each
defendant liable for the full amount or restitution or may
choose to apportion restitution accordingly. 18 U.S.C. §
3664(h). The Government bears the burden of proof to
demonstrate the amount of loss sustained by a victim, and
disputes must be resolved by the Court under a preponderance
of the evidence standard. § 3664(e). In this specific
matter, it is also important to note that restitution is
calculated based on the full amount of a victim's losses,
not Mr. Rodgers's gain. § 3664(f)(1)(A).
victim's losses must only be demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence. §3664(e). The
“preponderance of the evidence” standard requires
a trier of fact, in this case, the Court, to find “the
existence of a fact is more probable than its
nonexistence.” Concrete Pipe and Prods. of Cal.,
Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal.,
508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting In re Winship, 397
U.S. 358, 371-72 (1970)). Because the burden here rests on
the Government, the Government must persuade the Court of the
existence of their proposed facts. Id.
so initially, the Government provided spreadsheet exhibits,
summarizing victims' claims for restitution, but without
providing the evidence upon which the spreadsheets were
constructed. [R. 97.] Additional submissions prior to the
February 20, 2019, hearing included sworn affidavits
submitted to the United States Probation Office (USPO). Some,
but not all, of these affidavits included itemized lists of
expenses or photocopies of checks written to Mr.
Rodgers's companies. Some victims submitted only letters
to the USPO or to the Government directly without sworn
affidavits. The varying degree of reliability of this
evidence gives the Court pause, and so, before reviewing the
supplementary evidence and objections provided by the
parties, the Court first establishes a framework by which to
weigh each victims' request for restitution.
“underlying an award must have sufficient indicia of
reliability to support its probable accuracy.”
United States v. Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287, 294-95 (6th
Cir. 2016) (citations and quotations omitted). The Court must
make adequate factual findings when the calculated loss
amount is disputed. United States v. Sexton, 894
F.3d 787, 801 (6th Cir. 2018). But the Circuit Courts
generally leave evidentiary determinations, and which
evidence provides an indicium of reliability, up to the
District Courts, so long as the District Court explains its
Rodgers had been indicted on specific counts of fraud, the
jury would have had the opportunity to consider each
victim's allegations and either accept or deny the
evidence behind those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, this does not mean that Mr. Rodgers cannot be held
responsible for those losses. In Apprendi v. New
Jersey, the Supreme Court found, “any fact that
increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed
statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved
beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).
However, because restitution statutes do not specify a
statutory maximum amount, the Sixth Circuit has held that
restitution claims need not be submitted to a jury.
United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 461 (6th
Cir. 2005). In this matter, restitution requests must
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
victim's losses result from conduct in furtherance of the
convicted conspiracy, not just conduct from the over acts
required for a conspiracy conviction. United States v.
Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287, 295 (6th Cir. 2016).
Court first finds that a summary spreadsheet, without
additional evidence, is insufficient to meet the
preponderance of the evidence standard. In the Sixth Circuit,
“a summary chart, when supported by additional
evidence, can be used by the government to establish losses
for the purposes of restitution.” United States v.
Carmichael, 676 Fed.Appx. 402, 412 (6th Cir. 1017)
(citing United States v. Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287, 296
(6th Cir. 2016). In Carmichael, the Sixth Circuit
found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when
considering the summary chart along with additional,
supporting evidence. Id. at 413. The trial court
also reviewed testimony on how the chart was prepared, the
investigatory efforts in collecting the data, the ledger, and
the victim-impact statements. Id. Other circuits
agree. United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 557
(9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the district court erred by
basing an award of restitution on one-page summaries without
requiring detailed explanations of the losses suffered);
United States v. Hartstien, 500 F.3d 790, 796 (8th
Cir. 2007) (“Summary tables of accounting data that are
based on evidence not before the court, and that a party has
challenged as inaccurate, are not sufficient to support a
court's factual findings.”); United States v.
Menza, 137 F.3d 533, 539 (7th Cir. 1998) (“the
government must provide the district court with more than
just the general invoices . . .. The government must provide
sufficient explanations (supported by evidence reflected in
the record) as to how these invoiced losses directly relate
to [the defendant's] criminal conduct involved in his
underlying convictions.”). Therefore, summary requests,
such as those included in a spreadsheet, without detailed
explanations of specific losses, are insufficient to award
what rises to the level of such detailed explanation?
Undoubtedly, each request will require individual
determinations of reliability, particularly when a defendant
can provide evidence contrary to a victim's statement.
Even without objections by a defendant, however, the
victim's request must still include “sufficient
indicia of reliability.” United States v.
Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287, 294-95 (6th Cir. 2016). Because
the Sixth Circuit generally upholds a district court's
restitution award so long as it is within “the universe
of acceptable computations, ” and because the Court
“has wide latitude to determine the amount of a
victim's losses, ” the Court takes this opportunity
to outline what uncontested evidence would include such
reliability sufficient to support an award of restitution.
United States v. Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287, 295 (6th Cir.
2016); United States v. Patel, 711 Fed.Appx. 283,
287 (6th Cir. 2017).
a victim's testimony at trial could support an award of
restitution. Trial testimony occurs under penalty of perjury,
and opposing counsel has the opportunity to cross examine the
witness. The combination of direct questioning by the
Government and cross examination by the defendant would give
the Court sufficient information to determine whether or not
a victim's statements are reliable. Evidence admitted at
trial to accompany a victim's testimony is similarly
subject to scrutiny by the defendant because this too gives
the opportunity for a defendant to object to consideration of
more difficult question arises when a victim did not testify,
was not subject to cross examination, but has submitted a
statement to the Government, the USPO, or the Court
requesting a specific award of restitution. While those
statements may be sworn affidavits, the Court determines that
statements by a victim, without additional documentation of
loss amount, do not include sufficient indicia of
reliability. See, e.g., United States v. Steele, 897
F.3d 606, 613 (4th Cir. 2018) (finding a victim's
unsupported loss estimate, without additional evidence,
insufficient to satisfy the Government's burden of
proof); United States v. Charles, 895 F.3d 560, 566
(8th Cir. 2018) (finding mere statements, without other
documentation, do not support a Government's claim by a
preponderance of the evidence); United States v.
Baker, 584 Fed.Appx. 469, 471-72 (9th Cir. 2014)
(finding the district court properly discredited evidence
which did not clearly specify victim's losses or clearly
specify how such losses were caused by the defendant's
criminal conduct); United States v. Simmons, 544
Fed.Appx. 21, 24 (2d Cir. 2013) (finding the court abused its
discretion by awarding restitution based on nothing more than
an unsworn letter by a victim when the Government provided
“almost no information about the loss amount, no
documentation regarding [the victim's] loss, and no
explanation as to why procuring details or documentation was
impracticable”). But see United States v.
Dial, 705 Fed.Appx. 250, 255-56 (5th Cir. 2017) (finding
the district court was permitted to rely solely on victim
impact statements unless the defendant presented rebuttal
evidence); United States v. Lopez, 503 Fed.Appx.
147, 150 (3d Cir. 2012) (upholding an award of restitution
based only on a Government-prepared spreadsheet of losses and
a sworn statement by the victim).
conclusory statement by a victim suggests a loss, such
statement does not provide sufficient evidence to determine
the amount of loss or whether such loss was proximately
caused by the victim. Bank records, copies of checks,
invoices, deposit slips, etc. all demonstrate a presumably
reliable record of financial loss to which a defendant may
make specific objections. If the Government submits only a
victim's statement of a total loss amount, a defendant
would be forced to locate those same records in order to
rebut the Government's request. But determination of
restitution is not a burden shifting framework and requiring
this of the defendant improperly shifts the burden from the
Government to demonstrate loss amount to the defendant to
disprove loss amount. A detailed sworn statement, however,
outlining the total loss amount and how that loss amount was
calculated, may be sufficient if the calculation is
consistent with the testimony offered at trial.
the Court finds that mere conclusory statements, whether
sworn or unsworn, are also insufficient to establish
reliability sufficient to support an award of restitution.
For this Court to find the required indicia of reliability,
the Government must provide evidence other than a
victim's stated loss amount to establish loss and the
amount of that loss. In this case, copies of checks written
to Mr. Rodgers and/or his affiliated companies, bank records
showing transfers of money, invoices by Mr. Rodgers and/or
his affiliated companies, and other related documents would
indicate reliability to the Court. Furthermore, the Court
will consider detailed affidavits that include calculations
of loss consistent with testimony offered at trial to be
reliable. The Court further notes that this list is not
outlined this framework, the Court now considers the
restitution requests by the Government and the objections
made by Mr. Rodgers. The Government has submitted a
spreadsheet outlining their requests, plus a disk with a
large number of documents to support these requests, but no
specific argument as to how they calculate their requests.
[R. 116.] Because of this, the Court has not placed much
emphasis on the exact dollar amount requested by the United
States, instead reviewing the trial testimony, trial
exhibits, and documents submitted on that disk to determine
the award amount for restitution. Relatedly, Mr. Rodgers has
not made specific objections to the amounts requested or
identified payments that should not be counted for the
purposes of restitution. Instead, he has continued to make
general objections to the awards of restitutions, stating
that these victims “did not provide any evidence that
Ronnie Rodgers was the direct cause of the alleged
loss.” [See R. 119.]
begin, the United States has made numerous requests based on
checks obtained from the Department of Financial
Institutions, but which do not include a statement, sworn or
unsworn, from the victim. [See R. 116.] These
requests are insufficient to determine an amount of loss for
restitution purposes: while the Court can clearly see that
the alleged victim paid Mr. Rodgers and/or Rick-Rod Oil, the
Court is unable to determine if this is the actual amount of
loss. Testimony at trial suggested that many investors
received at least some amount in royalties or other returns,
though that amount varied wildly among investors. [See,
e.g., R. 107 at 170, 221; R. 108 at 12, 31, 45, 59, 61,
93-94, 119, 127, 131, 182; R. 109 at 35-36, 118-119; R. 112
at 67.] Thus, absent any evidence that these victims received
any of this money back, the Court is unable to even guess the
amount of loss by these victims, much less determine by a
preponderance of evidence. For these victims, the United
States has failed to meet its burden. 18 U.S.C. §
determined this, absent additional documentation, the
restitution requests on behalf of Louis and Judith Arruda,
Ibrahim and Dima Ayoub, B&K's Lawn Care Inc., Greg
Barber, Jim Bedell, Ronnie Belk, Paul Brooks, Junior Brown,
Ed Bascum Grider, Kimberly Cacciaguida, Keooudom Chianthong,
Cuppy's Coffee, Bobby Green and Barbara Curry, Michael
Darby, Sal and Elena DeRosa, Marvin Ezray, Global Moulding
Inc., Gold Run Trading LLC, Mike Gould, Dennis Griffin, Lance
Harrison, Mike and Wanda Hatcher, Dianne Heleno, Suzanne
Heleno, Murray Helmers, Larry Henderson, David Hughes, Johnny
and Carole Ireland, John Jarvis,  Norman and Vicki Kent, Kevin
Kessler, Richard Kittay, Marketing Comm Inc., Edward and Mary
McCaffrey, Rex McCarter, Edward Mendel, Nancy Mendel,
Michael Minchino,  Joan and William Naylor, Tom and Angela
Newslow, Tony Norris, Kevin O'Connor, Ralph Pantony,
Richard and Carol Quint, Ramsey Investment Group, Roger and
Melissa Richard, Michael and Robin Richardson, Bobby Simmons,
Sammy and Margaret Taylor, Texas Holsteins Inc., Timberwood
Development Corp., Robert and Mildred Vaughn, Condy and Betty
Young, Connie and Mark Young, Troy Young, and Richard
Zimmerman are DENIED.
Government has also made restitution requests for various
victims who testified at trial. [See R. 116.] As
stated previously, this testimony occurred under penalty of
perjury, with opportunity for opposing counsel to cross
examine the victim. Because of this, this trial testimony
gives the Court sufficient information to determine the
amount of restitution owed by a preponderance of the
Freeman testified at trial that she and her late husband,
Keith, invested in Mr. Rodgers's company. [R. 69 at 5.]
She stated at trial that she and her husband invested a total
of $60, 000, and two contracts showing two investments of
$30, 000 each were also introduced. Id. at 13-19.
The United States has requested $70, 000 in restitution to
Ms. Freeman, however, the testimony and evidence provided
support that she only invested $60, 000. [Compare R.
116-1 at 1 with R. 69 at 13-19.] Additionally, at
trial, Ms. Freeman indicated that they “received a $400
check from Mr. Rodgers on one of our visits . . . and he gave
us a good faith check for $400.” [R. 69 at 18.] Thus,
the Court finds that Ms. Freeman's loss is $59, 200: the
$60, 000 of her investment less the two checks she received
from Mr. Rodgers.
Elizarov submitted an affidavit to the United States
Probation Office requesting restitution of $620,
The Government has asked for $330, 000. [R. 116-1 at 1.] Mr.
Elizarov lists his losses as $330, 000 for two leases, $38,
000 in fees paid to Mr. Rodgers and associates for
improvement on the leases, $4, 200 to close two wells because
of environmental issues, $2, 000 in travel fees, $19, 800 for
interest return promised by Mr. Rodgers, and $216, 000 in
lost opportunities and emotional stress. Restitution can only
be awarded for actual losses, not lost
opportunities, and therefore the requests for $237, 800 in
travel, lost interest, lost opportunity, and emotional
distress are not permitted here. At trial, Mr. Elizarov
testified that he invested $330, 000 up front: $130, 000 to
purchase a property and $200, 000 to lease a well. [R. 70 at
23- 27.] He also indicated he still owned the property.
Id. at 24. True, Mr. Elizarov likely purchased the
property at a higher rate in anticipation of oil, however, no
one has offered any information on the value of the property
and how much more Mr. Elizarov paid over that actual value.
Because Mr. Elizarov still owns the property, the entire
$130, 000 cannot be considered a loss. The Court has
insufficient information as to its value; thus, the Court
does not have enough evidence to calculate how much Mr.
Elizarov lost on the property and disallows restitution
relating to its purchase. He further testified at trial to
paying $1, 554 in fees, but also indicated he “lost
more money” than that, but he never elaborated on
exactly how much more. Because he sufficiently outlined these
expenses in his sworn statement, however, the Court will
permit the full $38, 000 in fees, plus the $4, 200 to close
the wells. This amount, plus the $200, 000 paid for the oil
lease brings the total amount of investment for purposes of
restitution to $242, 200. Finally, at trial, Mr. Elizarov
also testified that he received up to $7, 000 in royalties
[R. 70 at 4- 5], bringing his total loss to $235, 200.
request from Andrew Linley is less complicated. The United
States requests $650, 000. He testified at trial that he
invested $650, 000 with Mr. Rodgers, but he received nothing
in return. [R. 72 at 4-5.] Since this amount was subject to
cross-examination, and the Government at trial introduced the
$650, 000 wire transfer from Mr. Linley to the escrow account
[Gov. Exh. 28B], the Court calculates Mr. Linley's loss
to be $650, 000.
Herb Steffen testified that he and his wife, Georgia,
invested $30, 000 with Mr. Rodgers [R. 73 at 4] but received
nothing in return [R. 73 at 11-12]. The Government introduced
as evidence the contract signed by Mr. Steffen, Ms. Steffen,
and Mr. Rodgers outlining that investment. [Gov. Exh. 26A.]
Therefore, the Court calculates the loss of Herb and Georgia
Steffen to be $30, 000.
Montgomery also testified that he invested with Mr. Rodgers.
Specifically, the Government produced a check from Mr.
Montgomery for $25, 000 [Gov. Exh. 2C] and for $3, 300 [Gov.
Exh. 2G] for a total investment of $28, 300 [R. 107 at 110].
Additionally, he testified that he never received anything
from his investment. [R. 107 at 118, 128-29.] The Court finds
his loss to be $28, 300.
Lillian Tharpe testified that she invested “about $143,
000.” [R. 107 at 147-48.] Exhibits supported several
payments totaling $117, 250 (though the Government's
restitution request rounds this to $120, 000). Id.
at 147-62. Ms. Tharpe also testified that she received around
$15, 000, though she does not know the exact amount of her
return on investment. Id. at 158. Because Ms. Tharpe
was unsure of exact amounts, the Court finds that the
exhibits introduced support that she invested a total of
$117, 250, and that she received up to $15, 000 back, making
her total loss for the purposes of restitution to be $102,
Drager invested $30, 000 to Rick-Rod Oil. [R. 107 at 183-84.]
He paid that initial investment with a single check. [Gov.
Exh. 15D.] Unfortunately, he has “never gotten a single
penny back” from this investment. [R. 107 at 190.]
Thus, Mr. Drager lost $30, 000 for the purposes of
victim, Candys Hemphill Adams, testified that she invested a
total of $89, 500. [R. 107 at 221.] The Government also
introduced several checks from Ms. Adams along with bills
from Mr. Rodgers that Ms. Adams confirmed she had paid.
Id. at 214-21. Ms. Adams claimed that she received
“less than $5, 000” as a return for her
investment. Id. at 221. Subtracting this $5, 000 in
returns from her total investment of $89, 500, the Court
finds Ms. Adams lost $84, 500 for the purposes of
Beeghly testified that he gave Mr. Rodgers and his companies
$28, 500. [R. 108 at 35.] The United States introduced
exhibits of checks from Mr. Beeghly for the amounts of $25,
000 [Gov. Exh. 6A] and $3, 300 [Gov. Exh. 6B]. He indicated
receiving five checks from Mr. Rodgers in the amounts of $2,
500, $3, 500, $1, 200, $1, 500, and $450 [R. 108 at 54; Gov.
Exh. 6J] plus another check for $70 [R. 108 at 44] and a
MoneyGram from Rickey Rodgers for $500 [Gov. Exh. 6K] for a
total of $9, 720 as a return on his investment. By the
Court's calculations, this means Mr. Beeghly lost a total
of $18, 780 for the purposes of restitution.
Schneider invested $74, 500. [R. 108 at 88, 94.] Of that
investment, he received $10, 000 in royalty checks for the
oil. Id. He testified to these amounts multiple
times at trial. Subtracting the $10, 000 he received from his
total investment of $74, 500, Mr. Schneider's loss for
the purposes of restitution is $64, 500.
“Hal” Campbell testified that he invested $100,
000, and the Government introduced as a trial exhibit his
check to Rick-Rod Oil, Inc. for that $100, 000. [R. 108 at
118; Gov. Exh. 5E.] He also estimated that he received checks
totaling approximately $1, 000. [R. 108 at 119.] The
Government provided to the Court royalty checks from Barrett
Oil and Sunoco in the amounts of $379.10, $189.05, $318.96,
and $141.72, for a total of $1, 028.83. [See R.
116-2.] The $1, 028.83 subtracted from Mr. Campbell's
total investment of $100, 000 leaves him with a loss amount
of $98, 971.17.
Chimnes provided the check for $30, 000 he invested with Mr.
Rodgers. [R. 108 at 157; Gov. Exh. 5H.] He testified that he
received “small checks here and there” for
royalties, but that the checks totaled under $1, 000. [R. 108
at 159-60.] The Government provided copies of royalty checks
for $97.68 (USA-00026924), $45.53 (USA-00026927), $54.64
(USA-00026937), $54.90 (USA-00026939), $113.75
(USA-00026942), $96.17 (USA-00026949), which total $462.67
and are consistent with Mr. Chinnes's testimony of small
checks under $1, 000. [R. 116-2.] Thus, the Court subtracts
the $462.67 in royalties from the total investment of $30,
000 for a total loss of $29, 537.33.
Lowery also testified at trial that he invested $100, 000 in
Mr. Rodgers's scheme. [R. 108 at 172.] He also indicated
that he received between $2, 000 and $3, 000 as a return on
his investment. Id. at 183. His signed affidavit
provided to the Government elaborates that he invested $80,
000 in two separate contracts, plus he paid five rounds of
completion fees at $3, 500 each. [R. 116-2.] Less the up to
$3, 000 he received on this investment, the Court finds by a
preponderance of evidence that Mr. Lowery lost $97, 000 on
Zimmerman invested $35, 000. [R. 109 at 13, 23.] At trial, he
also repeatedly relayed that he received nothing from his
investment, not even royalty checks. Id. at 13, 18.
Thus, for the purposes of restitution, Mr. Zimmerman
sustained a loss of $35, 000.
Powell initially invested $25, 000 [Gov. Exh. 10A] and then
paid a $3, 500 completion fee, for a total of $28, 500. [R.
109 at 29-32.] He testified that he received no money from
the oil but conceded that he received $8, 700 from Rickey
Rodgers “to make things right.” Id. at
34-36. Subtracting this $8, 700 from the total investment of
$28, 500 results in a loss of $19, 800 for Mr. Powell.
Jack Hill testified that he invested somewhere around $15,
000. [R. 109 at 48.] The Government introduced a check for
Mr. Hill's initial investment of $12, 500 [R. 109 at 55;
Gov. Exh. 19D], plus a $1, 650 check for roughly half the
completion fee [R. 109 at 57; Gov. Exh. 19F], and a $1, 666
check for the remaining fee due [R. 109 at 58; Gov. Exh.
19G], for a total investment of $15, 816. He also indicated
that he received royalties from Barrett Oil for less than
$300. The total investment of $15, 816 less the $300 in
royalties results in $15, 516 of loss for Mr. Hill.
Warren, and his wife Lisa, first invested $25, 000 and then
invested another $25, 000 with Mr. Rodgers's companies.
[R. 109 at 102.] Additionally, they paid five different
requests for completion fees: one in the amount of $3, 300
[R. 109 at 115] and four payments of $1, 750 [R. 109 at
121-22]. Total, Mr. Warren invested $60, 300. He also
testified that they received up to $5, 000 in money from
royalties [R. 109 at 22] and that Rickey Rodgers refunded
them $12, 000 [R. 109 at 126]. By the Court's
calculations, the $60, 300 invested, minus the $5, 000 in
royalties and $12, 000 in refund results in a loss of $43,
300 for Mr. Warren and his wife.
Whitehurst invested only once with Mr. Rodgers in the amount
of $30, 000. [R. 109 at 158.] Of this, he testified at trial
that he received $1, 700 in royalties. [R. 109 at 162-63.]
Subtracting the amount of money he received from ...