Lasher v. United States of America

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Lasher's motions are denied in their entirety and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 427 and 459. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 8/19/2019) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
- against -

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LENA LASHER
a/k/a Lena Congtang,

12 Cr. 868 (NRB)
17 Civ. 5925 (NRB)

Defendant.
----------------------------------X
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are Lena Lasher’s motions (1) to compel the
production of “all checks allegedly written out to [Lasher] by any
of the website operators,” ECF No. 427; and (2) to dismiss the
Court’s June 3, 2019 Order. 1

As to the first, Lasher argues that

the requested checks will show that she did not personally profit
from the conspiracy she was convicted of engaging in, and thus
entitle her to relief from the forfeiture order entered against
her.

But that challenge – premised on the notion that forfeiture

is limited to property that she herself “actually acquired as a
result of the crime,” Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626
(2017) - has already been considered and rejected by this Court in
a previous decision.
405

(“Second

liability
1

Circuit

under

See Mem. and Order, Aug. 20, 2018, ECF No.
precedent

Section

981,

mandates
see,

e.g.,

joint
United

and

several

States

v.

Although captioned as a motion to dismiss an unspecified order to show
cause, Lasher’s motion is properly construed as challenging the validity of the
Court’s June 3, 2019 Order. See ECF No. 459 at 2 (“The Southern District of New
York Court has no jurisdiction in the June 3, 2019 order because . . . .”).

Contorinis, 692 F.3d 136, 147 (2d Cir. 2012), and this precedent
binds

the

Court

unless

and

until

the

Supreme

Court

or

Second

Circuit says otherwise.”); see also S.E.C. v. Amerindo Investment
Advisors,

Inc.,

No.

05-CR-621

(RJS),

2019

WL

3526590,

at

*2

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019) (“As an initial matter, the Second Circuit
has not yet ruled upon the applicability of Honeycutt – a decision
that relied heavily on the intricacies of the particular statutory
scheme at issue in that case – to forfeiture statutes other than §
853,

which

governs

forfeiture

for

a

subset

of

drug

crimes.”).

Whether checks were “written out to [Lasher]” is thus irrelevant
to the validity of Lasher’s forfeiture order, and her request to
compel their production is denied.

See Order, ECF No. 324 (“Ms.

Lasher has no right to untethered post-conviction discovery.”).
Lasher’s

second

motion

is

also

without

merit.

As

we

explained at a July 1, 2019 order to show cause hearing, while the
Court

retains

Lasher’s

the

decision

power
to

to

file

enforce
a

notice

the

June

of

appeal

3,
of

2019

Order,

that

divested this Court of jurisdiction to dismiss or amend it.
No. 465.

Order
ECF

Lasher nevertheless requested an opportunity to submit

papers in opposition.

While the Court declined to preclude Lasher

from doing so, her submission does not alter our conclusion that
in light of her pending appeal, we lack jurisdiction to grant
Lasher’s requested relief.

See Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388

F.3d 39, 53 (2d Cir. 2004) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is

2

,,

....

an event of
on

the

cour:-t

jurisdictional significance of

appeals

and

di vests

it confers

the

district

jurisdiction
court

of

its

control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.")
(quoting Griggs
58

( 1 982) ) ;

see

v.

Provident Consumer Discount Co.,

also

Drywal 1

Tapers

&

Pointers

459 U.S.

of

56,

Greater

New

York, Local Union 1974 of I.U.P.A.T., AFL-CIO v. Nastasi & Assocs.
Inc., 488 F. 3d 88, 94
For

the

(2d Cir. 2007).

foregoing

reasons,

Lasher's

motions

are

denied

in

their entirety and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the motions pending at docket entries 427 and 459.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
August f!I_, 2019

L~tEh~J

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

A copy of the foregoing Order has been sent via FedEx on this date
to the following:
Lena Lasher
16 Patton Street
High Bridge, NJ 08829

4