USA v. Da Silva et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL JONAS DA SILVA,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 23-335 (FAB)
MEMORANDUM 	AND 	ORDER
BESOSA, Senior District Judge.
Before 	the 	Court 	are 	two 	motions 	filed 	by 	the 	parties:
(1) defendant 	Michael 	Jonas 	Da 	Silva 	(“Da 	Silva”)’s 	motion
requesting 	the 	release 	of 	his 	passport 	to 	U.S. 	Immigration 	and
Customs 	Enforcement 	(“ICE”) 	for 	his 	deportation 	(Docket 	No. 	87),
and (2) plaintiff United States of America (the “United States” or
the 	“government”)’s 	motion 	to 	impose 	restitution 	under 	the
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663, and
amend 	the 	judgment. 	(Docket 	No. 	92.) 	For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth
below, the Court GRANTS both motions.
I. 	Background
On September 7, 2023, a grand jury indicted Michael Jonas Da
Silva (“Da Silva”) for conspiracy to commit bank fraud (count one),
for 	producing, 	using 	and 	trafficking 	counterfeit 	access 	devices
(count 	two), 	and 	for 	aggravated 	identity 	theft 	(counts 	three
Case 3:23-cr-00335-FAB Document 95 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 6

Criminal No. 23-335 (FAB) 	2
through 	seven). 	(Docket 	No. 	14.) 	Da 	Silva 	entered 	into 	a 	plea
agreement on May 21, 2024 and pled guilty to counts two and three
of the indictment. 	(Docket Nos. 60 and 66.) 	The Court sentenced
him on August 13, 2024 to ten months as to count two, and twenty-
four 	months 	as 	to 	count 	three 	to 	be 	served 	consecutively 	to 	each
other, 	and 	a 	$100 	special 	monetary 	assessment 	for 	each 	count.
(Docket 	No. 	79.) 	The 	Court 	also 	deferred 	the 	determination 	of
restitution 	until 	November 	13, 	2024, 	ninety 	days 	after 	the
sentencing, to provide the parties the time to brief the Court on
restitution. 	Id. 	Da Silva was released on August 15, 2025 to ICE
custody - after serving his sentence – and is currently waiting to
be 	deported 	at 	the 	South 	Florida 	Detention 	Facility, 	i.e.,
Alligator Alcatraz. 	(Docket No. 87.)
On September 2, 2025, Da Silva filed a motion requesting that
the 	Federal 	Bureau 	of 	Investigation 	(“FBI”) 	release 	his 	passport
to ICE so that he may be deported to Brazil. 	Id. 	The government
does not oppose the motion. 	(Docket No. 89.)
On December 10, 2025, the government requested that the Court
amend the judgment and issue a restitution order in the amount of
$562,000 	payable 	to 	Banco 	Popular 	of 	Puerto 	Rico, 	the 	identified
victim. 	(Docket 	No. 	92 	at 	p. 	2.) 	Da 	Silva 	opposes. 	(Docket
No. 94.)
Case 3:23-cr-00335-FAB Document 95 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 6

Criminal No. 23-335 (FAB) 	3
II. 	Da Silva’s Request to Return Passport
Da Silva requests that the FBI release his passport to ICE so
that he may be deported to Brazil. 	The government states that the
FBI had previously attempted to return Da Silva’s properties to no
avail, but that the agents will return the passport as soon as Da
Silva’s attorney provides a point of contact at ICE. 	Id. 	(Docket
No. 89.)
Since there is no dispute that Da Silva’s property should be
returned, the Court GRANTS Da Silva’s motion. 	The FBI shall make
every effort to swiftly identify the appropriate contact person at
ICE. 	Should 	Da 	Silva 	have 	the 	information, 	he 	should 	provide 	it
as soon as possible.
III. Restitution
The government requests that the Court amend the judgment and
issue 	a 	restitution 	order 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$562,000 	payable 	to
Banco 	Popular 	of 	Puerto 	Rico, 	the 	identified 	victim. 	(Docket
No. 92 at p. 2.) 	Da Silva opposes the request. He argues that the
Court 	does 	not 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	amend 	the 	judgment 	past 	the
ninety-day 	deadline 	indicated 	in 	the 	MVRA. 	(Docket 	No. 	94 	at
p. 2.)
Restitution 	is 	“a 	mechanism 	for 	making 	a 	victim 	whole 	by
restoring 	the 	monetary 	equivalent 	of 	the 	losses 	suffered 	in 	the
consequence of the defendant’s criminal activity.” 	United States
Case 3:23-cr-00335-FAB Document 95 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 6

Criminal No. 23-335 (FAB) 	4
v. 	Salas-Fernández, 	620 	F.3d 	45, 	48 	(1st 	Cir. 	2010). 	Federal
courts 	cannot 	award 	restitution 	without 	authorization 	from
Congress. 	United 	States 	v. 	Papagno, 	629 	F.3d 	1093, 	1096 	(D.C.
Cir. 2011). 	In 1996, Congress enacted the MVRA to “provide those
who suffer the consequences of crime with some means of recouping
personal and financial losses.” 	United States v. Perry, 360 F.3d
519, 	530 	(6th 	Cir. 	2004) 	(quoting 	H.R. 	Rep. 	No. 	104-16, 	at 	5
(1995)); 	see 	Dolan 	v. 	United 	States, 	560 	U.S. 	605, 	612 	(2010)
(noting 	that 	Congress 	passed 	the 	MVRA 	“to 	ensure 	that 	victims 	of
crime receive full restitution”).
Under 	the 	MVRA, 	a 	defendant 	convicted 	of 	“certain 	federal
crimes - including (as relevant here) those ‘committed by fraud or
deceit,’ 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii) - must make restitution to
[his] victims[.]” 	United States v. Carrasquillo-Vilches, 33 F.4th
36, 45, 292 (1st Cir. 2022). 	Restitution is imposed “in the full
amount 	of 	each 	victim’s 	losses 	as 	determined 	by 	the 	court 	and
without 	consideration 	of 	the 	economic 	circumstances 	of 	the
defendant.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). 	Furthermore, “the [C]ourt
may 	also 	order 	restitution 	in 	any 	criminal 	case 	to 	the 	extent
agreed 	to 	by 	the 	parties 	in 	a 	plea 	agreement.” 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 3663(a)(3).
The 	Court 	has 	ninety 	days 	after 	sentencing 	to 	set 	the
restitution amount. 	18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5); 3 Charles Alan Wright
Case 3:23-cr-00335-FAB Document 95 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 6

Criminal No. 23-335 (FAB) 	5
& Athur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Crim. § 546 (5th ed. 2015).
If 	the 	Court 	misses 	the 	deadline, 	however, 	it 	still 	retains 	the
power to order restitution, so long as the Court made clear before
the 	deadline 	that 	it 	would 	order 	restitution 	and 	left 	open 	only
the amount. 	See Dolan, 560 U.S. at 611, 615, 620; Wright & Miller,
Fed. Prac. & Proc. Crim. § 546.
Here, 	the 	Court 	has 	the 	authority 	pursuant 	to 	the 	MVRA 	and
the 	plea 	agreement 	to 	order 	restitution. 	The 	Court 	indicated 	in
the 	judgment 	that 	Da 	Silva 	“must 	make 	restitution 	in 	accordance
with 	[the 	MVRA.]” 	(Docket 	No. 	79.) 	The 	Court 	did 	not 	indicate
the amount Da Silva would have to pay, but allowed the government
until November 13, 2024 to brief the Court on what the restitution
amount should be. 	Id. 	Although the government failed to provide
a 	restitution 	amount 	until 	now, 	the 	Court 	can 	amend 	the 	judgment
“to essentially fill in an amount-related blank in a judgment that
made 	clear 	that 	restitution 	was 	‘applicable.’” 	Dolan, 	560 	U.S.
at 620. 	This 	is 	especially 	true 	when 	“the 	defendant 	knew 	about
restitution, 	including 	the 	likely 	amount, 	well 	before 	expiration
of 	the 	90-day 	time 	limit.” 	Id. 	at 	615. 	Da 	Silva 	knew 	both 	that
restitution 	would 	be 	ordered, 	and 	the 	likely 	amount, 	because 	he
agreed 	to 	it. 	In 	accordance 	with 	the 	plea 	agreement, 	Da 	Silva
agreed 	to 	pay 	restitution 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$562,000 	– 	the 	amount
now 	requested 	by 	the 	government. 	See 	Docket 	No. 	60 	at 	pp. 	2-3.
Case 3:23-cr-00335-FAB Document 95 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 6

Criminal No. 23-335 (FAB) 	6
Additionally, the Presentence Investigation Report stated that Da
Silva 	“shall 	be 	ordered” 	to 	pay 	restitution. 	(Docket 	No. 	71 	at
p. 15.) 	Da 	Silva 	could 	have 	avoided 	“additional 	delay 	simply 	by
pointing 	to 	[the 	MVRA] 	and 	asking 	the 	[C]ourt 	to 	grant 	a 	timely
hearing” on restitution. 	Dolan, 560 U.S. at 616.
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	the 	government’s 	motion 	and
amends 	the 	judgment 	to 	include 	restitution 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$562,000 	payable 	to 	Banco 	Popular 	of 	Puerto 	Rico. 	See 	United
States 	v. 	Velissaris, 	2023 	WL 	4702049, 	at 	*6 	(S.D.N.Y. 	July 	24,
2023) 	(“[W]hen 	a 	court 	orders 	restitution 	based 	on 	a 	plea
agreement, ‘the court can order restitution only in an amount not
to exceed that agreed upon by the parties.’”).
IV. 	Conclusion
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	above, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	Da 	Silva’s
motion 	that 	his 	passport 	be 	released 	to 	U.S. 	Immigration 	and
Customs Enforcement. 	(Docket No. 87.) 	The Court also GRANTS the
United States’ motion to order restitution and amend the judgment.
(Docket No. 92.)
An amended judgment shall be issued.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 30, 2026.
s/ Francisco A. Besosa
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cr-00335-FAB Document 95 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 6