United States v. Brian Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364

Wilkozek, a loan officer, pled guilty in 2003 to mail fraud for creating phony mortgage applications that induced mortgage lenders to fund inflated home purchases; third-party lenders later bought the loans and lost about $713,400 after foreclosures.
At sentencing the district court ordered $713,400 restitution to the third-party lenders, and Wilkozek’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver (but not an explicit waiver of collateral attacks).
In 2014 the government sought a wage-turnover order from Wilkozek’s employer to collect unpaid restitution; Wilkozek filed a coram nobis petition claiming new evidence showed the third-party lenders were not victims and also contested the restitution accounting.
The district court denied coram nobis, adopted the government’s restitution calculation, and issued the wage-turnover order; the government later conceded it failed to credit $51,851.49 paid by a coconspirator and reduced the outstanding balance by that amount.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: the plea appeal waiver did not bar coram nobis or the accounting defense; misclassifying a lender as a victim is not a fundamental error remediable by coram nobis, and Wilkozek could not overcome his plea admission of lender reliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea appeal waiver bars coram nobis and challenge to restitution accounting	Wilkozek: waiver bars only direct appeal of sentence; coram nobis and accounting challenge not waived	Government: waiver prohibits court review of these claims	Waiver did not bar coram nobis or the accounting defense because collateral-attack waiver was not explicit and accounting is a defense to collection
Whether coram nobis should issue because third-party lenders were not "victims" who relied on fraud	Wilkozek: newly discovered evidence (post-2008 lender behavior reports) shows no reliance, so lenders not victims entitled to restitution	Government: plea admission and record show lenders relied on the fraudulent applications	Denied — misclassifying a victim is not the kind of "most fundamental" error coram nobis corrects; Wilkozek’s plea admission defeats his claim
Whether restitution payments by coconspirators were properly credited toward outstanding balance	Wilkozek: government failed to credit payments by co-conspirators, overstating his balance	Government: miscitation/accounting error	Government conceded and credited $51,851.49; no further relief required

Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (distinguishing collateral attack from direct appeal and discussing coram nobis context)
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1954) (origin and scope of coram nobis as remedy to correct fundamental errors)
United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (U.S. 2009) (coram nobis is a step in the criminal case; jurisdictional principles)
United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2007) (standards for coram nobis relief in Seventh Circuit)
United States v. Farano, 749 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2014) (victim under restitution statute must have relied on defendant’s fraud)
Keller v. United States, 657 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011) (plea agreements must explicitly waive collateral review to bar coram nobis)
United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199 (7th Cir. 1988) (discussion of finality and limits on reopening criminal judgments)