United States v. Bernard Seidling
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24897
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- From 2003–2009 Seidling filed dozens of small-claims lawsuits in Wisconsin under fake business names, listing false defendant addresses and fabricating service and publication of notice. He mailed pleadings to courts using the U.S. Mail.
- Defendants named in those suits were not served, were unaware of the suits, and thus default judgments issued; Seidling attempted collection on some judgments and obtained sheriff execution orders in a few instances.
- Indicted on fifty counts of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) based on the fraudulent small‑claims filings; later discovery increased the estimated intended loss and victim count.
- Seidling stipulated to the facts, waived jury trial, and moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the mail‑fraud materiality element failed because his misrepresentations were made to courts (third parties), not directly to the victims. The district court convicted on all counts.
- At sentencing the PSR calculated an adjusted offense level based on intended loss; the district court denied a three‑point reduction for acceptance of responsibility and sentenced Seidling to 36 months imprisonment (concurrent) and fines. Seidling appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Seidling) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether materiality requires convergence — that the person deceived must be the same as the person deprived of money/property | Materiality does not require deception be made to the same party who ultimately loses money; deceiving an intermediary (court) can be material if it has a natural tendency to influence the decisionmaking body and furthers the scheme | Because Seidling never intended his lies to be communicated to or relied upon by the victims, the misrepresentations to the court were immaterial and insufficient for mail fraud | Rejected Seidling’s convergence theory; materiality satisfied where false statements to the court were integral to executing the scheme to obtain victims’ money/property |
| Whether mailings were part of and essential to the scheme and done with intent to defraud | Mailings to the courts were integral and foreseeable means to execute Seidling’s scheme; he intended to obtain money/property | Seidling lacked intent regarding the mailings advancing his fraud against the victims because he did not communicate with them directly | Court found mailings were essential and made with intent to defraud; conviction affirmed |
| Whether the district court erred in denying a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 | Probation and government recommended a 3‑level reduction for acceptance of responsibility | Seidling argued denial lacked foundation; he asserted remorse and acceptance | District court’s factual finding of lack of remorse was not clearly erroneous; denial upheld |
| Whether denial of acceptance adjustment was harmless error affecting sentence | N/A (government) | Denial was not supported and not harmless | Court found sentencing court would have imposed same sentence even if reduction applied; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (materiality requires falsehood have natural tendency or capacity to influence decisionmaking body)
- Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) (scheme to defraud may exist even without reliance or successful deception)
- United States v. Walters, 997 F.2d 1219 (7th Cir. 1993) (mailing must be foreseeable and advance the defendant’s scheme; lack of intent can negate mail‑fraud conviction)
- United States v. Cosentino, 869 F.2d 301 (7th Cir. 1989) (deception of a third party/regulator can support mail fraud when it furthers a scheme that harms others)
- United States v. Stockheimer, 147 F.3d 1082 (7th Cir. 1998) (elements of mail fraud: scheme to defraud, use of mails to execute scheme, and intent to defraud)