Daniel Sullivan v. United States, 877 F.3d 337

Background

Daniel and John Sullivan ran home-remodeling businesses in Chicago that solicited refinance payments from elderly homeowners for unfinished or fraudulent work; they were convicted at trial of wire fraud and sentenced to 168 months each.
On direct appeal this court affirmed convictions and the district court’s loss calculation (approximately $750,000) and sentencing enhancements; the case was remanded to the same court for sentencing under Judge Castillo.
Daniel filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to object under Batson to the prosecution’s peremptory strike of an African‑American attorney-juror and (2) failing to retain an expert to contest the loss amount attributed to him.
The district court denied Daniel’s § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing in a one-paragraph order; this Court granted a COA on the two ineffective-assistance claims and reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion.
On the Batson claim, the prosecution struck juror Keenan Saulter (an African‑American practicing attorney); defense counsel did not object. The Court found Daniel could not make a prima facie Batson showing because legal training and status as an attorney are a legitimate, race-neutral basis for a strike.
On the loss-calculation/expert claim, the district court’s $748,601.90 figure deducted subcontractor labor and materials; the Court found Daniel offered no plausible theory or record evidence that expert testimony would have reduced loss below the critical $400,000 threshold, so counsel’s failure to hire an expert was not ineffective.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel ineffective for not raising Batson objection to strike of juror Saulter	Strike was race‑based; counsel should have objected	Strike was race‑neutral because Saulter was a practicing attorney with criminal-law connections	Denied — no prima facie Batson showing; failure to raise meritless objection not ineffective assistance
Counsel ineffective for not hiring an expert to contest loss amount	Expert would have shown loss ≤ $400,000 (or ≤ $200,000), lowering Guidelines range	Record and sentencing findings reasonably support ~$748,602 loss; no evidentiary basis expert would lower below $400k	Denied — petitioner offered no plausible basis that expert would have reduced loss below threshold; counsel not ineffective

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (proscribes race‑based exclusions of jurors)
Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (establishes Batson three‑step framework for prima facie showing and burden shift)
Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (court must assess whether prosecutor’s reasons are pretextual)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (prosecutor’s race‑neutral explanation need not be persuasive)
United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2014) (direct appeal affirming convictions and loss‑calculation issues)
Spiller v. United States, 855 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2017) (§ 2255 allegations that are conclusory do not require evidentiary hearing)