{"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":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1177,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-07-07 13:44:16"}