Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

While working as office manager and executive assistant for three successive businesses, defendant embezzled more than $240,000 by making personal purchases on company credit cards, falsifying expense reimbursement claims, and depositing corporate checks in her personal account. She pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, reserving the right to challenge a recommendation of a two-level sentencing increase for abuse of a position of trust, U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. The district court accepted the recommendation, which resulted in a guidelines range of 27 to 33 months, and imposed a sentence of 27 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, acknowledging that it was a "borderline" case for abuse-of-trust enhancement, and deferring to the trial court findings.

A 12-year-old girl called police and reported that she had ridden her bike to a hotel to play video games with a teen-ager she met online. Her online friend was a 29-year-old man who gave her marijuana and alcohol and engaged in sexual activities with her, against her will. Defendant entered a guilty plea to traveling across state lines with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b). He was sentenced to 135 months, which the court and the parties assumed to be above the applicable Guidelines range. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence as reasonable. The district court gave adequately particularized reasons for an above-Guidelines sentence, considering the girl's fear and other aggravating circumstances, but, in any case, miscalculated the range favorably to defendant. The sentence is actually within the correctly calculated range.

Plaintiff contracted for satellite TV service. Equipment costs are amortized in monthly payments; a customer who discontinues service owes a fee to cover the unpaid portion of equipment cost. Plaintiff authorized a charge to her debit card should that occur. Plaintiff stopped paying the monthly charge. Defendant collected the termination fee via the debit card. Plaintiff argued that the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 407(a), provides that benefits may not be assigned or subject to attachment or garnishment at the behest of creditors, and that, unbeknownst to defendant, all funds in her account came from Social Security benefits. The district court ruled in favor of defendant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff's arrangement was consensual, unlike "legal process." The statute does not authorize private parties to sue for damages based on assignments of Social Security benefits.

In 2006, BP began converting company-operated gas and convenience stores into franchisee-operated stores. From 2006 to 2008, plaintiffs purchased gas station sites and entered into long-term contracts with BP for fuel and use of BP's brand name and marks. In 2009 plaintiffs sued under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act. Consolidated cases were removed to federal court when plaintiffs added claims under the federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. They later added price discrimination claims under the Robinson-Patman Act. Before trial, all federal claims were withdrawn. The district judge relinquished supplemental jurisdiction and remanded to Illinois state court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A district court has broad discretion and the general presumption in favor of relinquishment was particularly strong because the state-law claims are complex and raise unsettled legal issues.

After Calabrese, a "made" man in the "Chicago Outfit" began cooperating with federal authorities, it became apparent that information about his cooperation was leaking to the mob. Defendant, a Deputy U.S. Marshal, was convicted of stealing government property and disclosing without authorization information regarding a witness protected in the WITSEC program, (18 U.S.C. 641; 18 U.S.C. 3521) and found not guilty of making false statements to law enforcement agents (18 U.S.C. 1001). He was sentenced to four years in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court properly denied a motion to suppress defendant's incriminating statements; there was no evidence of coercion that would render the statements involuntary. Even if the court improperly admitted evidence in violation of the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause, any error was harmless. The court affirmed the sentence, noting that Chicago witnesses had declined WITSEC protection because of defendant's conduct.

Defendant, convicted of two counts of receiving child pornography (18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(A); (b)(1)) and one count of possessing child pornography (18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B); (b)(2)), was sentenced to a prison term totaling 240 months. The Seventh Circuit rejected an argument that the conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because possession is a lesser-included offense of receipt. The evidence sufficiently showed that the receipt and possession convictions were based on different conduct. The court vacated the sentence as based on an improper assumption. The judge stated that defendant believed the crime was "victimless" and that defendant did not "believe any of this is criminal." Defendant did not make such assertions, but only claimed to be innocent and that his confession was coerced.

Plaintiff insured defendants. Defendant Schilli is a freight broker that arranges freight and provides risk management services for claims against other defendants, trucking companies, but does not own tractor-trailers or employ drivers. Plaintiff advanced funds to defend or settle claims against defendants for accidents that occurred during the duration of the policy. The policy had a coverage limit of $1,000,000 for each accident and a $100,000 basket deductible per occurrence and provides that "[y]ou agree to repay us up to this deductible amount for all damages caused by any one accident, as soon as we notify you of the judgment or settlement." Schilli's name and address are included in the definition of "you;" the other companies are named as insureds. Plaintiff sought reimbursement for amounts, up to the $100,000 deductible, that it advanced in defending and settling each case. Schilli refused to pay. In granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, the district court stated that the policy unambiguously defines "you" as all of the corporations. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the policy ambiguous as to the nature of defendants' liability for the deductible.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B), contingent upon his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the images underlying the charges. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Evidence that defendant sexually assaulted his old niece supported probable cause that he possessed child pornography and justified a search of his personal residence. Officers acted in good faith.

Defendant's stepmother was killed while he and others robbed his father's house to steal guns. A state court sentenced him to 71 years' imprisonment for murder and armed robbery. His conviction was affirmed. State courts rejected collateral attack. The district court rejected a petition for habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. 2254). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the attorney's failure to object to defendant being required to wear a stun belt at trial. The court declined to address whether the prosecutor violated the due process clause by taking advantage of an error during defendant's testimony. The claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court, whose decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court decisions.

Plaintiff filed a class-action in state court seeking overtime wages under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/4a, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). After the state court denied class certification, plaintiff filed suit in federal court, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for his overtime claim in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3). After the state suit was resolved for less than $5,000 and the federal case resulted in an award of about $11,000, plaintiff's attorney moved for attorneys' fees of $112,566. The district court awarded $1,864, reasoning that if the attorney had not misrepresented damages until the start of trial, the case would have settled quickly. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. Although a district court has discretion in determining the lodestar, it cannot base its decision on an irrelevant consideration or reach an unreasonable conclusion. It was unreasonable for the court to cut almost all of the attorney's hours based on its conclusion that the case should not have gone to trial.