United States v. Dingle
862 F.3d 607
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Leon and Karin Dingle controlled Advance Health, Social & Educational Associates, a for-profit consulting firm that received most of its revenue (≈88% from 2007–2010) from Illinois Department of Public Health grant programs administered through straw grantees.
- Broadcast Ministers Alliance, AWARE, and MHA were nominal grantees that received >$11 million in grants (2004–2010); approximately $4.5 million was diverted to Advance and used for personal luxuries and payments to the Dingles.
- Leon cultivated relationships with Department officials and grantee leaders (including sexual relationships with two employees) to steer grants to the straw grantees; he used fake contracts, false applications, and concealment to divert funds.
- Both Dingles were indicted (mail fraud conspiracy and substantive mail fraud counts; money laundering counts) and convicted after an eight‑week jury trial in district court.
- District court sentenced Leon to 72 months (below the 78–97 mo. guideline range) and Karin to 36 months (below the 41–51 mo. guideline range); restitution ordered. Both appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction wording ("should" vs "must") | Instruction properly stated burden; no error | Leon: wording undermined Winship reasonable‑doubt requirement | Waiver by request; prior circuit precedent permits "should"; no reversible error |
| Admission of evidence of Leon's sexual infidelities | Evidence showed close personal ties relevant to conspiracy and scheme | Leon: unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 | District court acted within Rule 403 discretion; evidence probative of relationships and trust |
| Sentence procedural and substantive reasonableness (Leon) | Sentence considered §3553(a) factors, age, restitution, mitigation | Leon: court failed to adequately consider age, health, restitution payments; substantive disproportionality | No procedural error; court considered mitigation and weighed factors; below‑guidelines sentence not unreasonable |
| Sufficiency of the evidence and sentencing (Karin) | Evidence showed Karin knowingly participated, benefited, and took actions supporting scheme | Karin: merely performed minor administrative tasks and lacked intent; loss amount overstates culpability | Viewing evidence favorably to government, jury could find intent; court applied minimal‑role reduction and reasonably sentenced her |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (Due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2016) (approval of jury instruction waives appellate review)
- United States v. Yu Tian Li, 615 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2010) (same waiver principle)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error standard for forfeited claims)
- United States v. Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2002) ("should" in instruction not reversible error)
- United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932 (7th Cir. 1988) (same)
- United States v. Donelli, 747 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2014) (judge must address principal mitigation arguments)
- United States v. Garcia‑Segura, 717 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2013) (procedural waivers at sentencing)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Sims, 329 F.3d 937 (elements for conspiracy to commit mail fraud)
- United States v. McClellan, 794 F.3d 743 (elements for mail fraud)
- United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113 (mens rea for money laundering)
- United States v. Price, 623 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.) (contrast: minimal involvement defendant)
- United States v. De Bright, 730 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir.) (procedural history concerning Price)