---
type: court_doc
id: "court_2cir_26-361_dkt_22"
court: "2Cir"
case_no: ""
doc_number: null
doc_type: "DOC"
filed_date: null
lang: "en"
machine_translated: false
url: "https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_2cir_26-361_dkt_22"
json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_2cir_26-361_dkt_22"
---
# Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — appeal · 2Cir ECF 26-361_dkt_22

**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.**


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