Whether the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act permits vicarious liability for conspiracy defendants based on the total foreseeable losses of a co-conspirator's fraudulent scheme

No question identified. : as codified within 18 U.S.C. § 3663A — allow courts to confer vicarious restitution liability upon defendants convicted of conspiracy for the actions of their co-conspirators, and to what extent? The case concerned a scheme to acquire mobile phones from Verizon Wireless under fraudulent pretext: Ms. Riley’s coconspirator Joshua Daniels would place orders for iPhones on the Verizon website, and two Verizon customer service agents were improperly induced to preapprove the shipments in exchange for side-payments; the phones were then mailed to addresses throughout the Detroit metropolitan area. After a jury trial, Ms. Riley was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and four counts of aiding and abetting mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1349; 18 U.S.C. § 2. The restitution judgment held Ms. Riley jointly and severally liable for the entirety of the value of the merchandise that was shipped throughout Detroit, a total of $454,077.61. However, Ms. Riley’s participation in the scheme was minimal: only 10 phones in total were delivered to her residence (and there was no evidence that she had knowledge of the many other deliveries); she had helped effectuate 4 wire-transfers (via CashApp) totaling $2,400 to a Verizon customer-service agent, but this amounted to a small fraction of the entirety of the side-payments the Verizon customer-service agents received over the course of her co-conspirator’s fraudulent scheme. As the opinion below shows, the 5th Circuit decided to affirm restitution based on the “entire amount” of the fraud in the Detroit area, relying on a theory of vicarious liability: the court cited its precedent that “[conspirators] may be held jointly and severally liable for all foreseeable losses within the scope of their conspiracy regardless of whether a specific loss is attributable to a particular conspirator.” Therefore, this case provides an ideal opportunity to clarify when a loss may be deemed “foreseeable” in a conspiracy; and whether (and to what extent) the MVRA permits the imposition of vicarious liability in conspiracy cases. Petitioner is requesting an extension of time due to other pressing matters in this Court and in Texas state courts — a petition for writ of certiorari due February 3, 2026, in Michael Thomas McCowan v. United States (25A731) and a jury trial on January 7, 2026, in Texas’s 175* District Court in State of Texas vs. Emilie Kirk (2025CR009475). For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that an order be entered extending her time to petition for certiorari in the above-captioned case to and including March 21, 2026. Respectfully submitted. SHANNON LOCKE State Bar No. 24048623 15600 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 105 San Antonio, Texas 78232 Tel: 210-229-8300 Fax: 210-229-8301 Counsel for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on this the December 31, 2025, have served a copy of the enclosed Application for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on all parties required to be served by enclosing a copy of each in an envelope and delivering it to United States Postal Service for delivery within three calendar days to: Solicitor General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 5614 Washington, D.C. 20530 /s| SHANNON LOCKE Shannon Locke