United States v. Aldridge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. VINCENT WALLACE ALDRIDGEand TORI ELYSE ALDRIDGE.

CRIMINAL NUMBER H-10-185-01

CRIMINAL NUMBER H-10-185-02

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

July 9, 2015

(CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-3221)

(CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-3609)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the court are Vincent Wallace Aldridge's and Tori Elyse Aldridge's Expedited Motion to Compel Government to Affirm or Deny Impropriety of Venue (Fed. R. Crim. P. 16[(a)(1)](F) & [(a)(1)](G)) ("Aldridges' Motion to Compel") (Docket Entry No. 346); Tori Aldridge's Expedited Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 348); Tori Aldridge's Expedited Motion to Compel the Government to Confirm or Deny the Impropriety of Venue and Expedited Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 350); Vincent Wallace Aldridge's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Docket Entry No. 352); Vincent Aldridge's Request for Stay of Sentence and Immediate Release Pending § 2255 Review (Docket Entry No. 354); Vincent Aldridge's Motion for Summary Judgment, Immediate Release, or Bond Pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Determination (Docket Entry No. 360); Tori Elyse Aldridge's Motion Under 28U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Docket Entry No. 362); the Government's Response and Motion to Dismiss Vincent Aldridge's Motion Filed Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket Entry No. 375); and the Government's Response and Motion to Dismiss Tori Aldridge's Motion Filed Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket Entry No. 376). After careful consideration, the court concludes that the Aldridges' motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence by a person in federal custody should be denied, that the United States' motions to dismiss should be granted, and that the remaining motions should all be denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Undisputed Facts

Vincent Aldridge's and Tori Aldridge's convictions arose out of a scheme to sell newly constructed townhouses in the Memorial Park area of Houston, Texas. The townhouses at issue were in a development called "Maxie Village" built by Waterford Custom Homes. The Aldridges' co-defendant, Gilbert Barry Isgar, owned 50% of Waterford Custom Homes. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 833 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

Also involved in the scheme were Alvin Eiland, a mortgage broker, and his employee, Gary Robinson. Robinson assisted Vincent Aldridge in forming Superb Construction, which laundered proceeds from these transactions. Both Eiland and Robinson pled guilty toconspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering and were not parties to this case. Id. at 834.

Closings for the townhouses sold were conducted by First Southwestern Title Company (FSW), which was operated by the Aldridges in Houston, Texas, and for whom Vincent Aldridge was also an attorney doing business as Aldridge & Associates. The Aldridges were both authorized signers on Aldridge & Associates' Interest Only Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA). Id.

The evidence at trial established that the Aldridges recruited three "straw purchasers" to buy eight of the townhomes. Vincent Aldridge purchased the ninth. The straw purchasers were individuals who wanted to invest in real estate and were told that they would receive $10,000 for each property they purchased; that they would not have to pay the mortgages because tenants would be found to lease the properties; and that after approximately one year the residences would be resold and the straw purchasers might then receive additional money. These straw purchasers provided the Aldridges with their respective names, social security numbers, and income information. The Aldridges then used these names and social security numbers, combined with falsified information about income, assets, and intent to use the property as a primary residence, to submit fraudulent loan applications to lenders. The false representations that each purchaser would be residing in the purchased home permitted the Aldridges to obtain 100% financing. Id. at 833-34.

Isgar inflated the sale price of the properties through falsified construction invoices and amendments to the sale contracts. The lenders approved loans to purchase the properties at the inflated practices. When the lenders wired the loan amounts to FSW, FSW made disbursements to Isgar as payment for the properties, which were disclosed to lenders on the settlement statement as required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Id. at 834. FSW also made other disbursements to Aldridge & Associates, as well as to Superb Construction, which were not disclosed on the HUD settlement statements.

The United States mail, including interstate commercial carriers, and wire communications were used to execute this scheme. Loan documents traveled across state lines by facsimile, mail, and e-mail. Loan proceeds were wire transferred from the lenders' banks outside of Texas to FSW's bank in Texas. Id.

B. Procedural Background

On March 25, 2010, a grand jury in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas returned a nineteen-count indictment against Vincent Aldridge and Tori Aldridge (Docket Entry No. 1). The indictment charged the Aldridges with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1349 (Count 1), wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343 (Counts 2-12), conspiracy to engage in money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)(Count 13), and money laundering and aiding and abetting money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1957 (Counts 14-19). The indictment also charged Isgar with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and wire fraud (Counts 1-13). On January 18, 2011, the case proceeded to trial.¹ On January 26, 2011, the jury convicted the Aldridges and Isgar on all counts (Docket Entry No. 92).

On April 1, 2011, Vincent Aldridge, acting pro se, filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Request for Evidentiary Hearing and Oral Argument ("Vincent Aldridge's Motion to Dismiss") (Docket Entry No. 119). On May 10, 2011, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Vincent Aldridge's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Request for Evidentiary Hearing and Oral Argument (Docket Entry No. 135).

On July 22, 2011, the court sentenced Vincent Aldridge to 63 months' imprisonment on each count of conviction to be served concurrently, to be followed by three years of supervised release and payment of $891,000 in restitution and $1,900 in special assessments.² On July 26, 2011, the court entered a Judgment as to Vincent Aldridge (Docket Entry No. 207).

On October 21, 2011, Tori Elyse Aldridge filed Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Sentencing and Motion for New Trialor Evidentiary Hearing (Docket Entry No. 249). On March 22, 2012, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket Entry No. 279) denying Tori Elyse Aldridge's Motion for New Trial, and the court sentenced Tori Elyse Aldridge to 63 months' imprisonment on each count of conviction to be served concurrently, to be followed by three years of supervised release and payment of $677,765.98 in restitution and $1,900 in special assessments.³ On March 26, 2012, the court entered a Judgment as to Tori Elyse Aldridge (Docket Entry No. 281), and on March 29, 2012, the court entered an Amended Judgment as to Tori Elyse Aldridge (Docket Entry No. 284) to correct a clerical mistake.

On January 13, 2014, the judgments entered against Vincent Aldridge and Tori Aldridge were affirmed on appeal (Docket Entry No. 339; and on October 6, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the Aldridges' petition for writ of certiorari. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

II. Motions Filed by Vincent Aldridge andTori Aldridge Before They Filed Motions

to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Before filing the pending motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence by a person in federal custody, Vincent Aldridge and Tori Aldridge filed three motions:Expedited Motion to Compel Government to Affirm or Deny Impropriety of Venue (Docket Entry No. 346) filed by Vincent Aldridge and Tori Aldridge; Expedited Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 348) filed by Tori Aldridge; and Expedited Motion to Compel the Government to Confirm or Deny the Impropriety of Venue and Expedited Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 350) filed by Tori Aldridge. For the reasons stated below, the court concludes that all three of these motions should be denied because they have no merit.

A. Motions Predating the Motions Filed Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

On May 8, 2014, Vincent Aldridge and Tori Aldridge filed an Expedited Motion to Compel Government to Affirm or Deny Impropriety of Venue (Docket Entry No. 346). In this motion

[t] he Defendants Vincent W. Aldridge and Tori Elyse Aldridge, move this court for an order compelling the United States Attorney's office to make suitable inquiries and to report to the defendant[s] whether venue in . . . [this] matter was improper for counts Two through Twelve, herein referred to as the "wire fraud counts." In particular, the defendants demand that the United States Attorney's office make suitable inquiries from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Harris County District Attorney's office, and that the United States' Attorney's office be precluded from denying discovery or production of work product, including correspondence and documents, by merely relying on the current personal knowledge of the Assistant United States Attorney currently representing the United States at this time.⁴

In the Memorandum of Law and Facts In Support of an...