United States v. Aston Wood, 31 F.4th 593

Between 2015 and 2019 Aston Wood solicited homeowners in foreclosure, collected mortgage and repurchase funds, but deposited victims’ money into accounts he controlled and used it for personal expenses, defrauding ~73 victims of nearly $400,000. Many lost homes and suffered non‑monetary harms.
A bankruptcy judge permanently enjoined Wood (W.D. Wis., Oct. 24, 2017) from offering foreclosure/debt‑relief services; Wood continued the scheme after that order.
Indicted on multiple counts, Wood pled guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of bankruptcy fraud; the PSR recommended a Guidelines range of 70–87 months (72 months within Guidelines).
At sentencing the district court emphasized victim vulnerability, Wood’s “heartlessness,” the duration of the scheme, his disregard of the injunction, and found his remorse not credible; the court announced a complete variance and imposed 144 months’ imprisonment plus 3 years supervised release.
At sentencing the judge briefly compared Wood to a previously sentenced, unrelated defendant (Sally Iriri); Wood did not object at the hearing and appealed both procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural error from district court’s surprise comparison to Iriri	Wood: comparator was sprung without notice, relied on incomplete/inaccurate info, and denied opportunity to rebut	Government: objection not preserved; plain‑error review should apply	Court: de novo review (Rule 51 sua sponte category); no procedural error — Wood failed to show inaccurate facts and any comparator reference was harmless
Substantive reasonableness of 144‑month upward variance	Wood: variance (≈66% above Guidelines) was excessive; court overweighed harms and ignored mitigation	Government: variance justified by particularized facts — victim vulnerability, relentlessness, post‑injunction conduct, and non‑monetary harms	Court: abuse‑of‑discretion review; variance upheld as reasonable and adequately justified by particularized factors

United States v. Ballard, 12 F.4th 734 (7th Cir. 2021) (standard for reviewing procedural sentencing challenges)
United States v. Pennington, 908 F.3d 234 (7th Cir. 2018) (due‑process right to be sentenced on accurate information; Rule 51(a) exceptions not required for post‑ruling explanation)
United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 51 discussion on exceptions and preservation)
United States v. Courtland, 642 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizing sua sponte grounds created by a court’s ruling that need not be excepted)
United States v. Farrington, [citation="783 F. App'x 610"] (7th Cir. 2019) (harmlessness analysis where comparator evidence did not determine sentence)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (requirements for justifying a variance from the Guidelines)
United States v. Propst, 959 F.3d 298 (7th Cir. 2020) (procedural error when sentencing rests on clearly erroneous facts)
United States v. Morgan, 987 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2021) (addressing review of above‑Guidelines variances and need for adequate justification)