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

In 2014, Bethea used fraudulently obtained credit cards to purchase merchandise at retailers in Wisconsin. Indicted for possessing a counterfeit access device, 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(1), Bethea agreed to plead guilty. At a combined guilty plea and sentencing hearing, the judge presided from his Madison, Wisconsin courtroom, while Bethea appeared via video conference from Milwaukee because of his health issues and limited mobility. After a plea colloquy, the judge accepted Bethea’s guilty plea and moved to sentencing. The judge acknowledged Bethea’s health as a complicating factor in imposing a sentence but remained bothered that Bethea’s illegal conduct allegedly continued well after his health issues supposedly worsened. Ultimately, the judge sentenced Bethea to 21 months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of the Guidelines range of 21-27 months. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) required Bethea to be physically present during his plea. View "United States v. Bethea" on Justia Law

As Harvey and Eibeck walked through Peoria, four men confronted them. One reached for his waistband. Harvey and Eibeck, who was high, ran. Eibeck heard a gunshot and kept running. The shooter killed Harvey. Police found no weapon, shell casing, or eyewitness. Eibeck could generally describe, but not positively identify, the shooter. Six months later, Officer Curry conducted a photo line-up; Eibeck identified Jackson, resulting in Jackson’s warrantless arrest. He had consumed alcohol and drugs before his arrest. Curry and Officer McDaniel interrogated Jackson on video. Jackson, high and woozy, said he was not at the shooting. McDaniel, who is black, told Jackson if he remained silent he would be charged and would not receive a fair trial because he is black. The officers allegedly falsely claimed multiple witnesses identified Jackson; suggested Jackson shot in self-defense; and pressured him to make false inculpatory statements. About two hours into the interrogation, Jackson collapsed. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed his first-degree murder conviction, concluding the police lacked probable cause for arrest. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal of the trial court’s refusal to dismiss, based on qualified immunity, claims the officers coerced a confession. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court’s decision not to watch the video does not fit within the exception to the general rule that only final orders are appealable. The court made no reviewable legal determination regarding McDaniel’s comments about race. View "Jackson v. Curry" on Justia Law

For several weeks, Redman posed as a psychiatrist at a Chicago medical clinic using the name and license number of Dr. Garcia. He “treated” patients for mental illnesses, and “prescribed” controlled substances. Redman actually did not attend school past the tenth grade. Before commencing employment, Redman provided falsified documentation: an employment application, payroll application, I‐9 Employment Eligibility Verification form, W‐9 form, photograph of an Indiana driver’s license with Redman’s picture, photocopy of an Illinois medical license, photocopy of a medical school diploma, a residency certificate for training in psychiatry, and a photocopy of a social security card. He used online counterfeiting services; he submitted an online Drug Enforcement Administration application and obtained malpractice insurance using false information. He was discovered when the real Dr. Garcia learned that someone had used his medical license number to obtain a DEA registration. A jury found Redman guilty of wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, furnishing false and fraudulent material information in documents required under the federal drug laws, and distributing controlled substances. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his 157-month sentence, upholding the application of two-level enhancements for use of sophisticated means and for conduct that involved a conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury. View "United States v. Redman" on Justia Law

Starting in 2008, Sunmola carried out an online romance scheme from South Africa, targeting middle-aged women in Georgia and Illinois. Sunmola often used pictures of men in U.S. military uniforms in his online profile to gain the victims' trust; they made electronic fund transfers after his false claims of financial distress. Sunmola secretly recorded some victims in sexually suggestive positions, then sent extortion demands. Authorities also discovered evidence of credit card fraud affecting businesses. He was charged with conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and interstate extortion. Authorities arrested Sunmola in London and transferred him to U.S. custody. Three days into his trial, Sunmola openly pleaded guilty to all counts, admitting to the essential elements of each offense. The judge accepted the pleas without a plea agreement. Applying several enhancements and considering other section 3553(a) factors, the district court sentenced Sunmola to 324 months in jail with an adjusted restitution payment of $1,669,050.98. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to a four-level “substantial financial hardship” sentencing enhancement, a two-level “vulnerable victim” adjustment, a two-level enhancement for acting on behalf of a government agency, and a four-level adjustment for acting as the organizer or leader. The court upheld the restitution calculation and application of general deterrence in his final sentencing. View "United States v. Sunmola" on Justia Law

During the execution of a search warrant, ATF agents found Bell in possession of a pistol. Charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), Bell entered a plea agreement. The Presentence Investigation Report calculated Bell’s total offense level as 23, with a criminal history category of VI, for a Sentencing Guideline range of 92-115 months, and stated that the Guideline range for supervised release is 1 year to 3 years, U.S.S.G. 5D1.2(a)(2). The Probation Officer also filed a separate sentencing recommendation, with a chart breaking down the statutory and Guideline ranges for supervised release. The government recommended a term of supervised release within the Guidelines range of one to three years. The district court sentenced Bell to 98 months’ imprisonment, plus three years of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court did not err in imposing a three-year term of supervised release without making a specific Guidelines calculation on the record; did not treat the policy statements as controlling authority but appropriately considered them as part of the entire section 3553(a) analysis in finding that a below-Guidelines sentence was not warranted; and adequately considered Bell’s arguments in mitigations. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

During the execution of a search warrant, ATF agents found Bell in possession of a pistol. Charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), Bell entered a plea agreement. The Presentence Investigation Report calculated Bell’s total offense level as 23, with a criminal history category of VI, for a Sentencing Guideline range of 92-115 months, and stated that the Guideline range for supervised release is 1 year to 3 years, U.S.S.G. 5D1.2(a)(2). The Probation Officer also filed a separate sentencing recommendation, with a chart breaking down the statutory and Guideline ranges for supervised release. The government recommended a term of supervised release within the Guidelines range of one to three years. The district court sentenced Bell to 98 months’ imprisonment, plus three years of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court did not err in imposing a three-year term of supervised release without making a specific Guidelines calculation on the record; did not treat the policy statements as controlling authority but appropriately considered them as part of the entire section 3553(a) analysis in finding that a below-Guidelines sentence was not warranted; and adequately considered Bell’s arguments in mitigations. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

In 2014, Williams was charged with conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute. He entered the Pretrial Alternatives Detention Initiative (PADI), graduated in June 2015, and was referred to the Probation Office for pretrial diversion. Williams subsequently submitted multiple urine samples that tested positive for marijuana use. After a judicial reprimand, Williams and the government agreed to a 90-day pretrial diversion plan followed by another one-year diversion beginning in February 2016. In June 2016, the government terminated the agreement based on Williams’ possession and use of cocaine. Williams pleaded guilty to the original charge with an agreed sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. After considering Williams’ assistance to the government and his graduation from the PADI program, the court sentenced Williams to time served and five years of supervised release. In May 2017, Williams was charged with and admitted to driving under the influence of heroin, possessing heroin, and other traffic offenses. His probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised release. The court sentenced Williams to three years’ imprisonment—the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3)—and one year supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court failed to consider the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines policy statements and failed to consider one of his arguments in mitigation. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

In 2014, Williams was charged with conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute. He entered the Pretrial Alternatives Detention Initiative (PADI), graduated in June 2015, and was referred to the Probation Office for pretrial diversion. Williams subsequently submitted multiple urine samples that tested positive for marijuana use. After a judicial reprimand, Williams and the government agreed to a 90-day pretrial diversion plan followed by another one-year diversion beginning in February 2016. In June 2016, the government terminated the agreement based on Williams’ possession and use of cocaine. Williams pleaded guilty to the original charge with an agreed sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. After considering Williams’ assistance to the government and his graduation from the PADI program, the court sentenced Williams to time served and five years of supervised release. In May 2017, Williams was charged with and admitted to driving under the influence of heroin, possessing heroin, and other traffic offenses. His probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised release. The court sentenced Williams to three years’ imprisonment—the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3)—and one year supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court failed to consider the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines policy statements and failed to consider one of his arguments in mitigation. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

In his third round of appeals, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Cureton’s convictions and sentences for using a firearm during a crime of violence and related crimes. The Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Dean v. United States (2017), which disapproved circuit precedents barring judges sentencing defendants under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and other crimes from considering the mandatory minimum sentence under section 924(c) when deciding the sentences for other crimes. On remand, the district judge issued an order explaining that he saw no basis for reducing Cureton’s sentence, focusing on the extraordinary viciousness of Cureton’s crimes, including the kidnapping and torture of the woman who was his victim. The order referred to Cureton’s “extreme” capacity for “violence and depravity” and said that any lower sentence would not be sufficient to serve the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The Seventh Circuit then affirmed Cureton’s 444-month total term of imprisonment. View "United States v. Cureton" on Justia Law

In his third round of appeals, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Cureton’s convictions and sentences for using a firearm during a crime of violence and related crimes. The Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Dean v. United States (2017), which disapproved circuit precedents barring judges sentencing defendants under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and other crimes from considering the mandatory minimum sentence under section 924(c) when deciding the sentences for other crimes. On remand, the district judge issued an order explaining that he saw no basis for reducing Cureton’s sentence, focusing on the extraordinary viciousness of Cureton’s crimes, including the kidnapping and torture of the woman who was his victim. The order referred to Cureton’s “extreme” capacity for “violence and depravity” and said that any lower sentence would not be sufficient to serve the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The Seventh Circuit then affirmed Cureton’s 444-month total term of imprisonment. View "United States v. Cureton" on Justia Law