United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge.
September 30, 2008, defendant Gregory Manuelian
(“defendant” or “Manuelian”) was
charged in a twelve-count indictment with wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and forgery of customs
forms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 496. Defendant pled
guilty in November, 2009, and in February, 2010, this Court
entered a judgment against defendant, sentencing him to 24
months imprisonment followed by 36 months of supervised
was ordered to pay a $1, 200 special assessment and $1, 188,
886.97 in criminal restitution to the victim of his crime,
Analogic Corporation (“Analogic”). In June, 2010,
this Court denied defendant's motion to modify his
sentence in which he asked the Court to relieve him of his
obligation to pay interest on the restitution.
June, 2017, defendant filed a motion to clarify the
restitution order and enjoin Analogic from foreclosing on his
residence. Analogic responded with a letter filed in August,
2017 and the government filed its response in September,
2017. For the reasons that follow, the motion to clarify the
restitution order will be allowed, with respect to
defendant's request for clarification, but denied, with
respect to his motion to enjoin Analogic from continuing its
Background and Procedural History
restitution order in this case requires defendant to pay $1,
188, 886.97 to Analogic according to a court-ordered
repayment schedule. In November, 2010, the government moved
for enforcement against defendant's assets by applying
for a writ of garnishment against his Individual Retirement
Accounts (“IRA”) held by garnishee, JPMorgan
Chase Bank NA. The Court held a garnishment hearing in
December, 2011 and entered a garnishee order in July, 2012.
In addition, upon his release from imprisonment, defendant
was ordered to pay restitution at a rate of 10% of his gross
to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(B), Analogic has registered
this Court's judgment with the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (“the
Eastern District”), commencing a separate civil action
to enforce the restitution order entered against defendant.
Defendant owns real property in that district and, as of the
time of his motion, resides in the district. In March, 2014,
the Eastern District granted Analogic's motion for
summary judgment as to its claim that defendant had
fraudulently conveyed an interest in real property
(“the property”) to himself and his wife as
tenants by the entirety. That conveyance was set aside to the
extent necessary to satisfy the restitution order.
February, 2017, defendant moved in the Eastern District for a
temporary restraining order to prevent the sale of the
property contending that he did not receive notice of the
sale. The Eastern District issued an order denying the motion
for a temporary restraining order in which it stated that the
payment schedule established by this Court did not
limit Analogic Corporation's right to use any and all
lawful remedies to collect [the restitution amount].
thereafter, Analogic filed a notice that it had reached a
stipulation postponing the execution sale of the property in
contemplation of the funding of a settlement. In May, 2017,
Analogic moved for an order authorizing the United States
Marshal's Service to re-schedule the sale of the property
because of defendant's failure to commit the funds
promised under parties' agreement.
Motion for Clarification of Restitution Order and to
Enjoin Analogic from Selling the Property
motion, styled as a motion for clarification of the
restitution order, defendant seeks to (1) establish that the
interest rate on the restitution be set at the standard
federal rate at the time of the judgment, 0.36% and (2)
enjoin Analogic from the sale of defendant's property.
response to defendant's motion, the government states
that, as to the United States, the applicable interest rate
for the restitution order is 0.36%. The government further
contends that it takes no position as to whether the same
interest rate applies when a victim commences a separate
civil action against a defendant under the Mandatory Victim
Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”).
is a mechanism for making a victim whole by “restoring
the monetary equivalent of losses suffered in consequence of
the defendant's criminal activity”. United
States v. Salas-Fernandez, 620 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir.
2010). Pursuant to the MVRA, district courts have the
discretion to order restitution “in addition to or in
lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law” to the
victim of defendant's criminal activity. 18 U.S.C. ...