郭文贵上诉 · 2Cir ECF 26-361_dkt_22

Case: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT In Re: Tony SDNY: 1:23-cr-00118-AT Second Circuit: 26-361 Letter to Respond to the Government's Recent Filing and Record Preservation I, Tony, appearing pro se under (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, respectfully submit this response to the Government’s filing in No. 26-77, Dkt. 17. Although that filing does not appear on my own docket in No. 26-361, the Government expressly included my case number and addressed my petition in its submission. I therefore respectfully respond. On April 18, 2026, this Court docketed my Emergency Stay motion in 26-361 Dkt. 18, the Government subsequently filed an objection on April 24. In between, on April 23, the District Court adjourned the sentencing to June 29, 2026. I. The Government’s Filing, as Applied to Me, Reflects Basic Factual and Procedural Errors in Para 22 1. The Government Incorrectly Claims That I Did Not Present a CVRA-Based Petition The Government’s assertion that my filing “does not make any CVRA-related claims” is incorrect. The record already reflects that I proceeded under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). In SDNY Dkt. 817, which the District Court itself uploaded and which contains my Second Circuit mandamus materials, it is plainly reflected that I invoked the CVRA as the basis for my petition. My emergency stay motion was filed within that mandamus proceeding and therefore must be read in the procedural context in which it was filed. It did not arise in isolation; it was submitted as part of a pending CVRA mandamus application and necessarily carried forward the same statutory basis.

Case: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, Page 2 of 4 Accordingly, the Government’s suggestion that my stay motion somehow ceased to be CVRA-based simply because it addressed sentencing-related consequences is not supported by the record. At a minimum, the Government’s characterization suggests either that it did not carefully review the docket materials incorporated into the mandamus proceeding, or that it has failed to account for the procedural posture in which the emergency motion was filed. In either event, its categorical assertion that my filing made “no CVRA- related claims” is unsustainable. 2. The Government’s “Third Parties Do Not Have the Right to Make Such Challenges” Argument Is Overbroad and Legally Misframed: The Government’s statement that “[t]hird parties do not have the right to make such challenges” is overbroad and misframes the issue. I do not claim a general nonparty right to litigate sentencing issues on a defendant’s behalf. Nor do I seek to relitigate the Sentencing Guidelines for their own sake. Rather, I invoke the CVRA as a crime victim to prevent the Court from proceeding on factual premises that directly affect victim-related rights, including fairness, restitution, and the meaningful exercise of the right to be heard. That a filing touches issues also bearing on loss calculation does not automatically convert it into an impermissible third-party intrusion into sentencing merits. The relevant question is not whether the challenged subject matter overlaps in some way with sentencing, but whether the filing is tied to the protection of concrete statutory rights held by a crime victim. If factual distortions relating to loss, record completeness, or the treatment of victim submissions may affect how the Court understands victim status, restitution-related consequences, or the fairness of the proceedings, then a victim’s effort to raise those issues cannot simply be dismissed by labeling the victim a “third party.” The Government’s argument improperly collapses two distinct propositions into one. It may be true that a nonparty cannot freely litigate

Case: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, Page 3 of 4 sentencing issues as though he were the defendant. But it does not follow that a crime victim proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 is barred from seeking protective relief merely because the facts at issue also bear on sentencing. The CVRA would be rendered hollow if any victim challenge touching sentencing-related facts could be excluded simply by calling it a third-party objection. II. Agreement as to the Government’s Restrictive Reading of the CVRA To the extent the Government advances broader arguments concerning the scope of the CVRA, I respectfully note my agreement with the discussion in No. 25-2726, Dkt. 47.1, Section III, Paragraph C, regarding the Government’s unduly restrictive reading of victim rights. I rely on that discussion only for its statutory analysis and not for any broader arguments beyond the scope of my own petition. III. Record Preservation ● The Nexus Between Financial Complexity and the Sentencing Continuance In Section II(B) of my Emergency Motion, I detailed the necessity of staying the sentencing due to the extreme complexity of the nature of funds, source of funds, and victim identities. This assertion is now corroborated by the District Court’s own findings. In SDNY DKT 837, Judge Torres was compelled to adjourn the proceedings "[d]ue to the complexity of the outstanding issues raised in the parties’ voluminous sentencing submissions." This judicial acknowledgment validates my position that the factual record regarding the movement of money remains unresolved. ● The Government Filing SDNY Dkt. 716-4 Corroborates with My Emergency Motion

Case: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.1, Page 4 of 4 The materials reflected in 716-4 further indicate that certain aspects of the financial structure were acknowledged by the Government prior to trial but it appears that certain aspects of the financial structure may not have been fully captured in the evidentiary record presented to the jury. Instead, the record reflects that a more simplified framework was used at trial. This observation is not offered to challenge the Government’s trial strategy, but to identify a discrepancy that now bears directly on the completeness of the record before the Court at sentencing. To the extent that the current record does not fully reflect the complexity of the underlying financial structure and the scope of affected victims, proceeding to sentencing on that basis risks impairing my rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, including the rights to fairness, restitution, and to be reasonably heard. IV. Further Proceedings on My Emergency Motion In light of the District Court’s adjournment of sentencing, I respectfully submit that my Emergency Motion remains before this Court, and I will abide by any schedule or further direction this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Tony April 29, 2026

Case: 26-361, 05/01/2026, DktEntry: 22.2, Page 1 of 1 Certificate of Service In re: Tony Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Case No: 26-361 SDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) I, Tony, hereby certify as follows: On April 29, 2026, I submitted true and correct copy of the following document: Letter to Respond to the Government's Recent Filing and Record Preservation was served on the following parties: 1: Nathan Rehn United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, NY 10278 2: Micah F. Fergenson United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 Executed on April 29, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Tony