United States v. Dewayne Preacely
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25079
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Preacely pleaded guilty in 2009 to tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).
- He was sentenced to 18 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
- A special condition barred him from acting directly or indirectly as a tax preparer during supervised release, except for his own family.
- After his release, he allegedly remained involved with Personal Tax, transferring ownership on paper to his wife.
- The IRS investigation later showed extensive involvement by Preacely in Personal Tax’s operations, including hiring, administering payroll, and answering tax-return questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether involvement in the tax-preparation business violated the special condition | Preacely contends no direct/indirect preparation occurred | Preacely argues the condition only barred direct/indirect tax-preparer acts, not administrative tasks | Yes; involvement in the business violated the condition |
| Whether the special condition was unconstitutionally vague | Preacely claims lack of fair notice about indirect obligations | Preacely argues vagueness and notice problems | No; not unconstitutionally vague given sentencing remarks and notice at sentencing |
| Standard of review and sufficiency of evidence for revocation | Record supports violation by preponderance of evidence | Evidence is insufficient to show indirect tax-preparer activity | District court did not abuse its discretion; evidence supported revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robertson, 648 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2011) (highly deferential review of supervised-release revocation)
- United States v. Musso, 643 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for revocation; clear-error factual review)
- United States v. Berry, 583 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2009) (within-Guidelines range not plainly unreasonable for revocation)
- United States v. Kizeart, 505 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2007) (support for standard of review and rationale on revocation)
- United States v. Schave, 186 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 1999) (void-for-vagueness analysis for supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Flagg, 481 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 2007) (proper challenge to supervised-release conditions on direct appeal or collateral review)