USA v. Aldridge et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
§
Plaintiff/Respondent, §
§
v. §
§
CRIMINAL NUMBER H-10-185-01
VINCENT WALLACE ALDRIDGE, §
§
Defendant/Petitioner. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Vincent Wallace Aldridge ("Defendant") was found guilty of one
count of Conspiracy to Corn.mit Wire Fraud and Mail Fraud in
violation of 18 U.S. C. § 1349, eleven counts of Wire Fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C.
Commit Money Laundering
1343 and 2, one count of Conspiracy to
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and
1957(a), and six counts of Money Laundering in violation of 18
u.s.c. 1957 and 2.1 The court imposed a personal money judgment
of $891,000.00 on Defendant at sentencing.2 Pending before the
court Defendant's First Amended Motion to Modi Restitution
Order and For Accounting Due to Extreme Hardship and Inequitable
Misallocation ("Defendant's Amended Motion to Modify") (Docket
1 Verdict, Docket Entry No. 91; Indictment, Docket Entry No. 1,
pp. 1-20. All page numbers reference the pagination imprinted at
the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case Filing system.
2Order of Forfeiture, Docket Entry No. 205, p. 3.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

Entry No. 485). The Government has filed The United States'
Response in Opposition to Defendant's First Amended Motion to
Modify Restitution Order ("Government's Response") (Docket Entry
No. 488). For the reasons explained below, Defendant's Amended
Motion to Modify will be denied.
I . Background
On July 22, 2011, the court imposed a personal money judgment
of $891,000.00 on Defendant after he was found guilty of one count
of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Mail Fraud in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1349, eleven counts of Wire Fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2, one count of Conspiracy to Commit Money
Laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and 1957(a), and
six counts of Money Laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957
and 2.3 The court also imposed a personal money judgment of
$891,000.00 against Defendant's former wife and co-defendant, Tori
Aldridge.4
In August of 2011 the Government filed a lien in
Fort Bend County, Texas, against the property of Defendant.5 In
October of 2025 the Government received notice that Defendant and
Ms. Aldridge were selling their home located at 1402 Noble Glen
3 Id. at 1, 3.
4 Order of Forfeiture, Docket Entry No. 278, p. 3.
5Notice of Lien for Fine and/or Restitution Imposed Pursuant
to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
Exhibit 2 to Government's Response, Docket Entry No. 488-2, p. 1.
-2-
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

Drive, Fresno, Texas 77545.6 Defendant "understood that there was
a lien attached to the property which would exceed what the equity
was in the property." 7 The Government explained to Defendant that
it "would only grant a partial release [of the lien]" on the
property, that it "was entitled to take all the proceeds of the
sale," and that it "would need to review a settlement statement
from the title company before the closing." 8
Ms. Aldridge then contacted the Government to explain that the
divorce decree between herself and Defendant "provided that she was
to be paid child support arrears from the proceeds of the home
sale." 9 The Government stated that it was not obligated to enforce
the amended divorce decree, and that for it to consider allowing
the proceeds to be credited to the child support arrears, Defendant
and Ms. Aldridge would have to agree on the amount owed. 10 On
October 27, 2025, Defendant and Ms. Aldridge agreed by email that
$30,947.50 of the proceeds of the home sale would be provided to
Ms. Aldridge as credit for delinquent child support.11 The
Government partially released its lien for purposes of the home
6Affidavit of Samantha Contini, Paralegal Specialist with the
United States Attorney's Office ("Contini Affidavit"), Exhibit 1 to
Government's Response, Docket Entry No. 488-1, p. 1 c:!I 2.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
«:[ 3.
at
at
1-2 «:[ 5.
2 «:[ 6.
-3-
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

sale and notified the company that it would allow proceeds in
the amount of $30,947.50 to be distributed to Ms. Aldridge.12
The home was sold on October 29, 2025, and after costs and
payoffs were deducted, including the arrears credit, the remaining
proceeds were credited to Defendant's and Ms. Aldridge's
restitution obligation.13 Accordingly, the title company sent two
checks for approximately $46,959.00 each (one for Defendant and one
for Ms. Aldridge) to the clerk of the court.14
Although Defendant is currently ordered to pay twenty
percent of his disposable earnings to the United States on a
monthly basis, he has not made a payment since June of 2022.15
On December 22, 2025, Defendant filed his Amended Motion to
Modify, alleging that he agreed to the arrears credit under extreme
duress and that the home sale proceeds were disproportionately
credited between his and Ms. Aldridge's restitution obligations.16
The Government filed a response on February 11, 2026, and Defendant
filed a reply on March 23, 2026.17
12
13
14
<.I 7.
<JI 8.
Order of Garnishment, Docket Entry No. 472, p. 111.a.;
Contini Affidavit, Exhibit 1 to Government's Response, Docket Entry
No. 488-1, p. 2 1 9. Defendant has paid approximately $57,397.55 of
his restitution obligation. Contini Affidavit, Exhibit 1 to
Government's Response, Docket Entry No. 488-1, p. 2 1 9.
16Defendant's Amended Motion to Modify, Docket Entry No. 485,
pp. 1-2.
17Government's Response, Docket Entry No. 488; Defendant's
Reply to the United States' Response in Opposition to Motion to
Modify Restitution Order, Docket Entry No. 489.
-4-
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

II. Analysis
Defendant asks the court to (1) "modify, suspend, or equitably
adjust the restitution order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) based
on a material and continuing change in financial circumstances,"
(2) "order a full accounting of restitution proceeds pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §§ 3664(j) and (f)," and (3) "reallocate or return funds
that were misapplied or inequitably attributed to a co-defendant in
a manner inconsistent with federal restitution states, Texas
community-property law, and principles of equity."18
A. Modification of the Restitution Order
Defendant asks the court to "modify or suspend the restitution
order, particularly as to proceeds from the homestead" because he
has a permanent disability, has a reduced earning capacity,
experienced homelessness, and has increased financial obligations
from his divorce.19 The Government did not address the merits of
Defendant's claims in its Response.
"Under § 3664(k), a defendant who is ordered by the district
court to pay restitution may notify the court 'of any material
change the defendant's economic circumstances that might affect
the defendant's ability to pay restitution,' and '[u]pon receipt of
the notification, the court may, on its own motion, or the motion
18 Defendant's Amended Motion to Modify, Docket Entry No. 485,
p. 1.
at 3, 5.
-5-
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

of any party, including the victim, adjust the payment schedule, or
require immediate payment in full, as the interests of justice
require.'" United States v. Rooney, Criminal No. 3:0l-CR-231-D,
2014 WL 3865974, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C.
§ 3664(k)). "[CJ ourts determine whether a defendant's economic
circumstances have materially changed 'by an objective comparison
of a defendant's financial condition before and after a sentence is
imposed."' United States v. Tarnawa, 26 F.4th 720, 724 (5th Cir.
2022) (quoting United States v. Franklin, 595 F. App'x 267, 273
(5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)). "[A] material change is 'a bona
fide change in the defendant's financial condition, either positive
or negative.'" Id. (quoting Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210,
1215 (11th Cir. 2003)). The defendant "bears the burden of proving
that his circumstances have changed enough to warrant such a
modification." United States v. Wooderts, No. 3:97-CR-054-D, 2008
WL 245352, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2008).
Defendant has not carried his burden to show a sufficient
change in his financial circumstances to warrant a modification of
his restitution order. At the time of his sentencing, Defendant's
monthly income was $3,300 to $3,500,20 and his former wife reported
that they were paying $2,583 in expenses each month (including
$1,140.78 for their mortgage, $118 for house insurance, $36.25 for
home owner's association fees, $200 for car insurance, $35 for gas,
20 Presentence Investigation Report, Docket Entry No. 132, p. 14
<][ 56 (sealed).
-6-
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

$150 for electricity, $120 for telephones, $300 for food, $120 for
car gas, $13 for life insurance, $50 for miscellaneous items, and
$300 church offerings) . 21 Defendant alleges that his present
monthly income is $4,318 and that he pays $4,441 in expenses each
month (including $1000 rent, $250 for lities, $116 for cable
and internet, $400 for food, $250 for fuel, $125 for car insurance,
$270 for health insurance, $1200 for child support, $430 for church
tithe, $200 for church offering, and $200 for miscellaneous
items). 22 Even if the court accepts as true Defendant's unsworn
allegations in his Amended Motion to Modify, the only economic
circumstance that has significantly changed since the court ordered
Defendant to pay restitution is Defendant's child support
obligations. 23 The court concludes that Defendant's child support
obligations are not a sufficient change in his financial
circumstances to warrant a modification of restitution order. 24
To the extent that Defendant is asking the court to suspend
restitution, reduce the total amount of restitution owed, or
21 at 15 'I 59.
22Defendant's Amended Motion to Modify, Docket Entry No. 485,
p. 22.
23Compare Presentence Investigation Report, Docket Entry
No. 132, pp. 14-15 11 56, 59 (sealed), with Defendant's Amended
Motion to Modify, Docket Entry No. 485, p. 22.
24 Defendant has also
payment he feels he could s
Criminal Action No. 10-434,
June 21, 2017).
to propose a monthly restitution
fy. See United States v. Phillips,
2017 WL 2 67 114 4, at * 2 ( S. D. Tex.
-7-
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

reimburse the home sale proceeds, the court is not permitted to do
so. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k); Rooney, 2014 WL 3865974, at *3.
B. Accounting of Restitution Proceeds
Defendant asks the court to order a full accounting of
restitution proceeds pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3664(j) and (f).25
However, §§ 3664(j) and (f) do not permit the court to do so.26 The
25 Defendant's Amended Motion to Modify, Docket Entry No. 485,
p. 1.
2618 U.S.C. § 3664(j) reads as follows:
(1) If a victim has received compensation from
insurance or any other source with respect to a
loss, the court shall order that restitution be
paid to the person who provided or is obligated to
provide the compensation, but the restitution order
shall provide that all restitution of victims
required by the order be paid to the victims before
any restitution is paid to such a provider of
compensation.
(2) Any amount paid to a victim under an order of
restitution shall be reduced by any amount later
recovered as compensatory damages for the same loss
by the victim in -
(A) any Federal civil proceeding; and
(B) any State civil proceeding, to the extent
provided by the law of the State.
18 U.S.C. § 3664(f) reads as follows:
(1) (A) In each order of restitution, the court shall
order restitution to each victim in the full
amount of each victim's losses as determined
by the court and without consideration of the
economic circumstances of the defendant.
(B) In no case shall the fact that a victim has
received or is entitled to receive
(continued ...)
-8-
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

court is unaware of any authority that entitles Defendant to such
relief.
C. Reallocation of Funds from Home Sale
Defendant asks the court to reallocate or return funds that
were misapplied "to a co-defendant in a manner inconsistent with
federal restitution statutes, Texas community-property law, and
principles of equity. "27
The court is not aware of any authority that entitles
Defendant to the reallocation or reimbursement of paid restitution.
Moreover, the proceeds from the sale of the home were not
misapplied. Although the Government was entitled to take all the
26 ( ••• continued)
compensation with respect to a loss from
insurance or any other source be considered in
determining the amount of restitution.
(2) Upon determination of the amount of restitution
owed to each victim, the court shall, pursuant to
section 3572, specify in the restitution order the
manner in which, and the schedule according to
which, the restitution is to be paid, in
consideration of-
(A) the financial resources and other assets of
the defendant, including whether any of these
assets are jointly controlled;
(B) projected earnings and other income of the
defendant; and
(C) any financial obligations of the defendant;
including obligations to dependents.
27 Defendant's Amended Motion to Modify, Docket Entry No. 485,
p. 1.
-9-
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

proceeds from the sale of the home, it granted a partial release of
the lien to allow $30,947.50 of the proceeds to be credited to the
child support arrears. 28 The remaining proceeds were then credited
to Defendant's and Ms. Aldridge's restitution obligation.29
Importantly, Defendant agreed to this arrangement orally and in
writing.30
III. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons explained above, Defendant's First Amended
Motion to Modify Restitution Order and For Accounting Due to
Extreme Hardship and Inequitable Misallocation (Docket Entry
No. 485) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 11th day of June, 2026.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28Contini Affidavit, Exhibit 1 to Government's Response, Docket
Entry No. 488-1, pp. 1-2 ii 2, 6-7.
29Id. at 2 <_[ 8.
30Id. i 6. Although Defendant argues that he agreed to this
arrangement under duress, the record does not support his claim.
Id.; Email from Defendant, Exhibit 3 to Government's Response,
Docket Entry No. 488-3, p. 1 ("I confirm the agreement.").
-10-
Case 4:10-cr-00185 Document 491 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 10