Case 4:13-cr-00628 Document 765 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/15 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES O FAM ER ICA

VS.
H O R TENCIA M ED ELES-AR GUELLO
ak a R AQUELM ED ELES GAR CIA
ak a TENCH A

MOTION FOR ORDER OF MANDATORY RESTITUTION

an ide ntifie d victim in thiscase , byand through h e rattorne ys, filesthis
M otion forO rde rofM andatoryR e stitution and statesasfollows.
I.

BACKGROUND
O n O ctobe r9 , 2013, H ortencia M e de les-Argue llo (ak a R aque lM e de les Garcia, ak a

Te nch a) (D e fe ndant) was indicted by the United States on se ve n (7) counts including
conspiracytocom m itse xtraffick ing, conspiracytoh arboralie ns, and m one ylaunde ring in the
United States through activitie s organize d and supe rvise d by D e fe ndantatthe Las Palm as
prope rty, wh ich sh e owne d and ope rated. Th e United Statesfiled a supe rse ding indictm e nton
January14, 2015.
O n April16, 2015,

testifie d attrialaboutthe e xploitative se x traffick ing

ne twork controlled by D e fe ndantand adm inistered by h e rassociates, including M r. Javie r

Bonilla.

waside ntifie d through h e rtestim ony and othe re vide nce asD e fe ndants

victim . O n April24, 2015, the juryfound D e fe ndantguiltyon sixcountsincluding conspiracyto

com m itse x traffick ing, conspiracy to h arboralie ns, and m one y launde ring. See generally

D B1/85317208.1

Case 4:13-cr-00628 Document 765 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/15 Page 2 of 8

Supe rse ding Crim inalIndictm e nt, Jan. 14, 2015, ECF No. 419 ; Ve rdictForm , Apr. 24, 2015,
ECFNo. 503.
through h e rattorne ys of record, willprese nta victim im pactstatem e nt
regarding the h arm sh e suffe red atthe h andsof D e fe ndant. See generally Ex. A, Nov. 2, 2015
Victim Im pactStatem e nt.
In h e rstatem e nt,

de scribe sthe proce ssbywh ich sh e wastarge ted bya young

m an (M r. Bonilla), wh o e arne d h e rtrustove ran e igh tm onth pe riod in M e xico. M r. Bonilla

convince d

thath e love d h e rand convince d h e rtojoin h im in H ouston, Te xas. Upon

h e rarrivalin Te xas, M r. Bonilla im m e diatelych ange d h isattitude and countenance toward

H e wasangry and annoye d, blam ing m ostof h isproblem son the financialcostof
transporting

toH ouston.

M r. Bonilla, aspartof D e fe ndantssch e m e , use d h isrelationsh ip with

to

m anipulate h e rinto prostitution atLasPalm as. H aving already gaine d h e rtrust, M r. Bonilla
convince d

thatitwasthe onlywaysh e could m ak e e nough m one ytopayback the

pe ople wh obrough th e rtothe United States. Forsixm onths, D e fe ndantprofited from the se xual
e xploitation ofthe unde rage

wh owork e d twe lve (12)h oursh iftssixdaysa we e k and

saw upto25 custom e rsin a single day.

Asa resultof D e fe ndantscrim e s,

h ase xpe rie nce d se ve re e m otionalpain

including de spairand isolation from h e rfam ilyin M e xico. Sh e isfe arful, sh y, and unwilling to
trustpe ople orbuild relationsh ipsassh e trie stom ove on with h e rlife and forge tthe trave stie s
inflicted upon h e r. M oreove r,

sunde rgoing m e dicaltreatm e ntforreproductive issue s

cause d by h e rse xuale xploitation. Sh e m ay ne ve rbe able to h ave ch ildren asa resultof

D B1/85317208.1

- 2-

Case 4:13-cr-00628 Document 765 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/15 Page 3 of 8

D e fe ndantscrim e s. Eve n with the be sttreatm e ntand circum stance sgoing forward,
willne ve rbe able tofullyrecove rfrom the h arm com m itted againsth e r.
II.

ARGUMENT
A.

is a Crime Victim Entitled to Mandatory Restitution

Pursuantto18 USC 159 3(c), the term victim m e ansthe individualh arm e d asa result
of a crim e unde rthisch apter. . . . H e re, D e fe ndantwasconvicted of se xtraffick ing a crim e
unde rthisch apter. See 18 USC 159 1.
testim onyattrial, in addition tothe testim onyof othe rwitne sse s, confirm e d
thatD e fe ndanttarge ted unde rage girls, use d fak e boyfrie ndstoe arn the trustof the victim s,
and the n m anipulated the girlsintoh e runde rage prostitution ring atLasPalm as. Asa resultof
this abuse and conspiracy,

suffe red from and continue s to suffe r from se ve re

psych ologicaland ph ysicalillne sse s. Th e exploit

ation of

wasdone in furthe rance of

the conspiracytocom m itse xtraffick ing, wh ich be ne fitted D e fe ndantfinancially. Assuch ,

sa victim ofD e fe ndantscrim e and ise ntitled torestitution.
Th e paym e ntof restitution to

ism andatory, notdiscretionary. 18 U.S.C.

159 3 provide sin pe rtine ntpart:

(a) the courtshall orde rrestitution foranyoffe nse unde rthisch apter.
(b)(1) Th e orde rof restitution unde rthisse ction sh alldirectthe de fe ndanttopay
the victim (through the appropriate courtm e ch anism ) the fullam ountof the
victim slosse s, asde term ine d bythe courtunde rparagraph (3)ofthissubse ction.
(2) An orde rof restitution unde rthisse ction sh allbe issue d and e nforce d in
accordance with se ction 3664 in the sam e m anne ras an orde runde rse ction
3663A.
(3) Asuse d in thissubse ction, the term fullam ountof the victim slosse sh as
the sam e m e aning asprovide d in se ction 2259 (b)(3) and sh allin addition include
the greaterof the grossincom e orvalue tothe de fe ndantof the victim sse rvice s
orlabororthe value of the victim slaborasguarantee d unde rthe m inim um wage
and ove rtim e guarantee sof the FairLaborStandardsAct(29 U.S.C. 201 e t.
se q.)
D B1/85317208.1

- 3-

Case 4:13-cr-00628 Document 765 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/15 Page 4 of 8

(Em ph asisadde d).

18 U.S.C. 2259 (b)(3) in turn statesthatthe term fullam ountof the victim slosse sinclude s
lostincom e ;attorne ysfe e s, aswe llasothe rcostsincurred;and anyothe rlosse ssuffe red bythe
victim asa proxim ate resultofthe offe nse . 18 U.S.C. 2259 (b)(3)(D )-(F).
Applying the se standardsto the instantcase ,
am ountof $49 0,229 .10.

se e k srestitution in the total

Th e spe cific losse s, h arm s and costs thatwe re the resultof the

D e fe ndantscrim e sand thatcom prise

restitution claim are sum m arize d asfollows

and de tailed in an e xpe rtreport. See generally Ex. B, Expe rtW itne ssR e portof R obe rtA.
Le vine , CPA/ABV, CGM A.
Lost Income
asse rtsh e rrigh ttorestitution of past, prese ntand future lostwage s. See 18
U.S.C. 159 3, 2259 . See also 3663A(b)(C), 3771. Starting wh e n

was15 ye ars

old, the D e fe ndantsse xtraffick ing ring pulled h e rawayfrom h e rlife asa stude ntin M e xico.
Sh e wastarge ted, m anipulated, and e xploited allforthe financialgain of D e fe ndantand h e r
associates. Be fore m e e ting M r. Bonilla,

dream e d of studying atthe unive rsityand

be com ing a psych ologist. Th atdream isnow gone . M r. Bonilla convince d

todrop

outof sch oolunde rthe false prem ise thath e would tak e care ofh e r. H e and D e fe ndantdid quite
the opposite. W ith h e rdream ssquash e d isolated from h e rfam ilyand sch ool

as

be e n force d tom ak e a life builton little ifanye ducationalach ie ve m e nt.

lostwage sh ave be e n de term ine d byStoutR isiusR oss(SR R )sR obe rtA.
Le vine , a M anage rin SR R sD ispute Advisory &

Forensic Se rvice s Group. O ne of SR R s

focuse sisValuations& FinancialO pinions. M r. Le vine isa Ce rtifie d Public Accountantwith an

D B1/85317208.1

- 4-

Case 4:13-cr-00628 Document 765 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/15 Page 5 of 8

Accreditation in Busine ssValuation. M r. Le vine isalso de signated asa Ch artered Global

M anage m e ntAccountant. H e iswe ll-qualifie d toissue a lostwage analysis.
SR R e stim ates

totalloste arningsclaim tobe $231,438. See Ex. B at19 and

internalEx. C. Th e calculation isbase d on

testim onyand the accom panying Victim

Im pactStatem e nt. Th e calculationsare reasonablyconsistentwith variousstudie sregarding the

im pactof abuse on the e conom ic we ll-be ing of victim s.See Ex. B at21. Th us,
respe ctfullyreque sts$231,438 in lostwage s.
Additional Mandatory Restitution (Value of Victims Services to Defendant)
In addition tothe lostwage claim ,

asse rtsh e rrigh ttoadditionalm andatory

restitution pursuantto18 U.S.C. 159 3(a)(3). Th e calculation isbase d on the greaterof the
grossincom e orvalue to the de fe ndantof the victim sse rvice sorlabororthe value of the
victim slaborasguarantee d unde rthe m inim um wage and ove rtim e guarantee softhe FairLabor
StandardsAct.
SR R calculates

additionalm andatoryrestitution claim tobe $185,250, wh ich

isthe greaterof the value of the se rvice spe rform e d forD e fe ndantand the am ount
would h ave e arne d during the sam e tim e pe riod unde rFLSA m inim um wage requirem e nts. See
Ex. B at20, internalEx. D .

work e d atLasPalm asforsixm ont

h s. D uring thattim e ,

h e rse rvice swe re value d atapproxim ately$7,125 pe rwe e k . See Ex. B at20. Th e calculation is
base d on

testim onyand the accom panying Victim Im pactStatem e nt. Accordingly,

respe ctfullyreque sts$185,250 in additionalm andatoryrestitution.

Attorneys Fees and Costs

D uring the se proce e dings, M s.

h asbe e n represe nted byattorne ysfrom M organ,

Le wis& Bock iusLLPand D yk e m a CoxSm ith.

prepared the applicable m otionsand filings, and advise d
D B1/85317208.1

- 5-

attorne ysrese arch e d applicable law,

through outthe judicial

Case 4:13-cr-00628 Document 765 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/15 Page 6 of 8

proce ss. Th e attorne ysfe e s and costs incurred as a resultof represe nting
$73,541.10.1 Both firm sh ave represe nted

is

on a probonobasis. Conse que ntly, the

attorne ysfe e sawarde d willbe donated to non-profitch aritie sthatassistvictim sof h um an

traffick ing.
III.

CONCLUSION
respe ctfully reque stsrestitution from the D e fe ndantforlostwage sin the

am ountof $231,438, additionalm andatoryrestitution in the am ountof $185,250, and attorne ys

fe e sand costsin the am ountof$73,541.10 fora totalclaim of$49 0,229 .10.2

1
2

See Ex. C, Invoice sforFe e sand Cost

s, D yk e m a CoxSm ith & M organ, Le wis& Bock iusLLP.
rest
itut
ion cl
aim isfurt
h e rsupport
e d by18 USC 3663 and 3663A. H owe ve r, t
h ism ot
ion focuse s
on t
h e spe cific appl
icat
ion of18 USC 159 3, wh ich prescribe sm andat
oryrestit
ut
ion forvict
im sofse xt
raffick ing
crim e s.

D B1/85317208.1

- 6-

Case 4:13-cr-00628 Document 765 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/15 Page 7 of 8

D ate: D e ce m be r15, 2015

R e spe ctfullysubm itted,

/s/Lewis A. Smith
Le wisA. Sm ith
Te xasBarNo. 24088439
Southe rn D istrictofTe xasBarNo. 229 2401
lsm ith@ m organlewis.com
Attorney-in-Charge
D e nise Scofie ld
Te xasBar. No. 007849 34
Southe rn D istrictofTe xasBarNo. 1529 5
dscofie ld@ m organlewis.com
Craig A. Stanfie ld
Te xasBarNo. 24051371
Southe rn D istrictofTe xasBarNo789 722
cstanfie ld@ m organlewis.com
Of Counsel
M O R GAN, LEW IS & BO CK IUS LLP
1000 Louisiana Stree t,Suite 4000
H ouston, Te xas77002
T. 713.89 0.5000
F. 713.89 0.5001

D B1/85317208.1

- 7-

Case 4:13-cr-00628 Document 765 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/15 Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I h e rebyce rtifythaton D e ce m be r15, 2015, a true and correctcopyofthe foregoing was
se rve d via the ECFsystem orregularm ailon allcounse lofrecord.

/s/ Lewis A. Smith

Le wisA. Sm ith

D B1/85317208.1

- 8-