{"id":"court_2cir_26-361_dkt_22","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 26-361_dkt_22","summary_zh":"回应信/记录留存函(Letter to Respond to the Government's Recent Filing and Record Preservation)——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo)案第二巡回上诉法院 26-361 号 ECF #22(2026年5月1日立案,信函落款4月29日)。请愿人 Tony(pro se,依犯罪被害人权利法 CVRA 18 U.S.C. § 3771 主张身份)回应政府在 No. 26-77 Dkt. 17 中的表述,反驳其称自己未提出 CVRA 主张、以及'第三方无权提出此类质疑'的说法,并援引地区法院因量刑材料复杂已于4月23日将量刑改期至6月29日(SDNY Dkt. 837)一事,主张此前的紧急中止量刑动议仍待本院处理。","summary_en":"Letter to Respond to the Government's Recent Filing and Record Preservation — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), Second Circuit No. 26-361, ECF/DktEntry #22 (filed May 1, 2026; dated April 29, 2026). Pro se petitioner Tony, proceeding as a crime victim under the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771), rebuts the government's filing in No. 26-77, Dkt. 17 that he made no CVRA-based claim and that third parties lack standing for such challenges, citing the District Court's April 23, 2026 adjournment of sentencing to June 29 for complexity (SDNY Dkt. 837) as corroboration, and states his emergency stay motion remains pending before the Circuit.","body_en":"Case: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, Page 1 of 4\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND\nCIRCUIT\nIn Re: Tony\nSDNY: 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nSecond Circuit: 26-361\nLetter to Respond to the Government's Recent Filing and\nRecord Preservation\nI, Tony, appearing pro se under (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, respectfully submit this\nresponse to the Government’s filing in No. 26-77, Dkt. 17. Although that filing does not\nappear on my own docket in No. 26-361, the Government expressly included my case\nnumber and addressed my petition in its submission. I therefore respectfully respond.\nOn April 18, 2026, this Court docketed my Emergency Stay motion in 26-361 Dkt. 18,\nthe Government subsequently filed an objection on April 24. In between, on April 23, the\nDistrict Court adjourned the sentencing to June 29, 2026.\nI. The Government’s Filing, as Applied to Me, Reflects Basic\nFactual and Procedural Errors in Para 22\n1. The Government Incorrectly Claims That I Did Not Present a CVRA-Based\nPetition\nThe Government’s assertion that my filing “does not make any CVRA-related\nclaims” is incorrect. The record already reflects that I proceeded under the Crime\nVictims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). In SDNY Dkt. 817, which the\nDistrict Court itself uploaded and which contains my Second Circuit mandamus\nmaterials, it is plainly reflected that I invoked the CVRA as the basis for my\npetition. My emergency stay motion was filed within that mandamus proceeding\nand therefore must be read in the procedural context in which it was filed. It did\nnot arise in isolation; it was submitted as part of a pending CVRA mandamus\napplication and necessarily carried forward the same statutory basis.\n\nCase: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, Page 2 of 4\nAccordingly, the Government’s suggestion that my stay motion somehow ceased\nto be CVRA-based simply because it addressed sentencing-related consequences\nis not supported by the record. At a minimum, the Government’s\ncharacterization suggests either that it did not carefully review the docket\nmaterials incorporated into the mandamus proceeding, or that it has failed to\naccount for the procedural posture in which the emergency motion was filed.\nIn either event, its categorical assertion that my filing made “no CVRA-\nrelated claims” is unsustainable.\n2. The Government’s “Third Parties Do Not Have the Right to Make Such\nChallenges” Argument Is Overbroad and Legally Misframed:\nThe Government’s statement that “[t]hird parties do not have the right to make\nsuch challenges” is overbroad and misframes the issue. I do not claim a general\nnonparty right to litigate sentencing issues on a defendant’s behalf. Nor do I seek\nto relitigate the Sentencing Guidelines for their own sake. Rather, I invoke the\nCVRA as a crime victim to prevent the Court from proceeding on factual premises\nthat directly affect victim-related rights, including fairness, restitution, and the\nmeaningful exercise of the right to be heard. That a filing touches issues also\nbearing on loss calculation does not automatically convert it into an impermissible\nthird-party intrusion into sentencing merits. The relevant question is not whether\nthe challenged subject matter overlaps in some way with sentencing, but whether\nthe filing is tied to the protection of concrete statutory rights held by a crime\nvictim. If factual distortions relating to loss, record completeness, or the treatment\nof victim submissions may affect how the Court understands victim status,\nrestitution-related consequences, or the fairness of the proceedings, then a victim’s\neffort to raise those issues cannot simply be dismissed by labeling the victim a\n“third party.” The Government’s argument improperly collapses two distinct\npropositions into one. It may be true that a nonparty cannot freely litigate\n\nCase: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, Page 3 of 4\nsentencing issues as though he were the defendant. But it does not follow that a\ncrime victim proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 is barred from seeking protective\nrelief merely because the facts at issue also bear on sentencing. The CVRA would\nbe rendered hollow if any victim challenge touching sentencing-related facts\ncould be excluded simply by calling it a third-party objection.\nII. Agreement as to the Government’s Restrictive Reading of the\nCVRA\nTo the extent the Government advances broader arguments concerning the scope of the\nCVRA, I respectfully note my agreement with the discussion in No. 25-2726, Dkt. 47.1,\nSection III, Paragraph C, regarding the Government’s unduly restrictive reading of victim\nrights. I rely on that discussion only for its statutory analysis and not for any broader\narguments beyond the scope of my own petition.\nIII. Record Preservation\n● The Nexus Between Financial Complexity and the Sentencing Continuance\nIn Section II(B) of my Emergency Motion, I detailed the necessity of staying the\nsentencing due to the extreme complexity of the nature of funds, source of funds,\nand victim identities. This assertion is now corroborated by the District Court’s\nown findings. In SDNY DKT 837, Judge Torres was compelled to adjourn the\nproceedings \"[d]ue to the complexity of the outstanding issues raised in the\nparties’ voluminous sentencing submissions.\" This judicial acknowledgment\nvalidates my position that the factual record regarding the movement of money\nremains unresolved.\n● The Government Filing SDNY Dkt. 716-4 Corroborates with My Emergency\nMotion\n\nCase: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, Page 4 of 4\nThe materials reflected in 716-4 further indicate that certain aspects of the\nfinancial structure were acknowledged by the Government prior to trial but it\nappears that certain aspects of the financial structure may not have been fully\ncaptured in the evidentiary record presented to the jury. Instead, the record reflects\nthat a more simplified framework was used at trial. This observation is not offered\nto challenge the Government’s trial strategy, but to identify a discrepancy that now\nbears directly on the completeness of the record before the Court at sentencing. To\nthe extent that the current record does not fully reflect the complexity of the\nunderlying financial structure and the scope of affected victims, proceeding to\nsentencing on that basis risks impairing my rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights\nAct, including the rights to fairness, restitution, and to be reasonably heard.\nIV. Further Proceedings on My Emergency Motion\nIn light of the District Court’s adjournment of sentencing, I respectfully submit that my\nEmergency Motion remains before this Court, and I will abide by any schedule or further\ndirection this Court deems appropriate.\nRespectfully submitted,\nTony\nApril 29, 2026\n\nCase: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.2, Page 1 of 1\nCertificate of Service\nIn re: Tony Petitioner\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\nCase No: 26-361\nSDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nI, Tony, hereby certify as follows:\nOn April 29, 2026, I submitted true and correct copy of the following document:\nLetter to Respond to the Government's Recent Filing and\nRecord Preservation\nwas served on the following parties:\n1: Nathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\n2: Micah F. Fergenson\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York\n26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278\nExecuted on April 29, 2026.\nRespectfully submitted,\nTony","body_zh":"Case: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, 第 1 页，共 4 页\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\nIn Re: Tony（关于：Tony）\nSDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）：1:23-cr-00118-AT\nSecond Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）：26-361\n回应政府近期提交文件及记录保全之信函\n我，Tony，依据《Crime Victims’ Rights Act》（《犯罪受害者权利法》，简称“CVRA”），18 U.S.C. § 3771，以亲自出庭答辩（pro se）身份，谨此就政府在 No. 26-77，Dkt. 17 中提交的文件提出本回应。尽管该提交文件并未出现在我本人案号为 No. 26-361 的案卷日程中，但政府在其提交文件中明确包含了我的案号并针对我的请愿书进行了回应。因此，我谨此作出回应。\n\n2026年4月18日，本法院在 26-361 Dkt. 18 中登记了我提出的紧急中止动议，政府随后于 4月24日 提出了异议。在此期间，地区法院于 4月23日 将量刑程序延期至 2026年6月29日。\n\nI. 政府提交的文件在适用于我时，在第22段中反映出基本的事实和程序错误\n1. 政府错误地声称我未提出基于 CVRA 的请愿书\n政府声称我的提交文件“未提出任何与 CVRA 相关的请求”是不正确的。记录已经表明我是依据《犯罪受害者权利法》18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) 推进程序的。在地区法院自行上传且包含我的第二巡回上诉法院职务履行令（mandamus）材料的 SDNY Dkt. 817 中，已清楚反映出我援引了 CVRA 作为我请愿书的依据。我的紧急中止动议是在该职务履行令程序内提起的，因此必须在其提起的程序背景下进行解读。它并非孤立产生；它是作为未决的 CVRA 职务履行令申请的一部分提交的，并且必然承继了相同的法定依据。\n\nCase: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, 第 2 页，共 4 页\n因此，政府认为我的中止动议仅仅因为涉及与量刑相关的后果就以某种方式不再基于 CVRA 的观点，并无记录支持。退一步讲，政府的这种定性表明，要么其未仔细审查并入职务履行令程序的案卷材料，要么其未能考虑到提起该紧急动议时的程序态势。\n无论在哪种情况下，其断然声称我的提交文件“未提出任何与 CVRA 相关的请求”都是站不住脚的。\n2. 政府关于“第三方无权提出此类异议”的主张过于宽泛且在法律层面上构拟不当：\n政府关于“[第]三方无权提出此类异议”的陈述过于宽泛且对问题构拟不当。我并未主张非当事人享有代表被告就量刑问题进行诉讼的一般权利。我也并非为了量刑指南本身而试图对《Sentencing Guidelines》（《量刑指南》）重新进行诉讼。相反，我是作为犯罪受害者援引 CVRA，以防止法院在直接影响受害者相关权利（包括公平、赔偿以及切实有效行使陈述权）的事实前提下推进程序。一份提交文件触及同样关涉损失计算的问题，并不会自动将其转化为对量刑实体问题的不可接受的第三方干预。相关的问题不在于受到质疑的标的事项是否在某种程度上与量刑重叠，而在于该提交文件是否与保护犯罪受害者所享有的具体法定权利相关联。如果与损失、记录完整性或受害者提交材料的处理相关的事实扭曲可能影响法院对受害者身份、与赔偿相关的后果或诉讼程序公正性的理解，那么受害者提出这些问题的努力就不能仅仅通过给受害者贴上“第三方”标签而被简单驳回。政府的主张不当地将两个截然不同的主张混为一谈。非当事人确实不能像被告那样随意诉讼\n\nCase: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, 第 3 页，共 4 页\n量刑问题。但这并不意味着依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771 推进程序的犯罪受害者仅仅因为争议事实也关涉量刑就被禁止寻求保护性救济。如果任何触及量刑相关事实的受害者异议只要被称为第三方异议即可被排除，那么 CVRA 将被架空。\n\nII. 关于政府对 CVRA 作出限制性解读的认同\n在政府提出有关 CVRA 适用范围的更广泛主张的范围内，我谨表示认同 No. 25-2726，Dkt. 47.1，第 III 节，第 C 段中关于政府对受害者权利作出不当限制性解读的论述。我仅依赖该论述中的法定分析，而不依赖超出我自身请愿书范围的任何更广泛的主张。\n\nIII. 记录保全\n● 资金复杂性与量刑延期之间的关联\n在我的紧急动议第 II(B) 节中，我详细阐述了由于资金性质、资金来源和受害者身份的极度复杂性而有必要中止量刑程序。这一主张现已得到地区法院自身调查事实的证实。在 SDNY DKT 837 中，Torres 法官被迫延期审理，“[鉴]于双方大量量刑提交材料中所提出的未决问题的复杂性”。这一司法确认证实了我的立场，即关于资金流向的事实记录仍未解决。\n● 政府提交文件 SDNY Dkt. 716-4 证实了我的紧急动议\n\nCase: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, 第 4 页，共 4 页\n716-4 中反映的材料进一步表明，财务结构的某些方面在审判前已得到政府的承认，但财务结构的某些方面似乎并未在向陪审团出示的证据记录中得到充分体现。相反，记录反映出审判时采用了更为简化的框架。提出这一观察并非为了质疑政府的审判策略，而是为了指出目前直接关涉法院在量刑时面前记录之完整性的不一致之处。在当前记录未完全反映底层财务结构的复杂性以及受影响受害者的范围的限度内，以此为基础推进量刑存在损害我在《犯罪受害者权利法》项下权利的风险，包括获得公平对待、获得赔偿以及获得合理陈述意见的权利。\n\nIV. 关于我的紧急动议的进一步程序\n鉴于地区法院对量刑程序的延期，我谨提请本法院注意，我的紧急动议仍在由本法院审理，我将遵守本法院认为适当的任何日程安排或进一步指示。\n\n谨此提交，\nTony\n2026年4月29日\n\nCase: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.2, 第 1 页，共 1 页\n送达证明\n关于：Tony，请愿人\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n案号：26-361\nSDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）案号：United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国 诉 Kwok［郭文贵］等人），1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n我，Tony，特此证明如下：\n2026年4月29日，我提交了以下文件的真实且正确的副本：\n回应政府近期提交文件及记录保全之信函\n已送达下列各方：\n\n1: Nathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\n\n2: Micah F. Fergenson\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）\n26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278\n\n于 2026年4月29日 签署。\n\n谨此提交，\nTony","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1177,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 09:29:23"}