United States v. Evelyn Johnson, 911 F.3d 849

Evelyn Johnson pleaded guilty to preparing false tax returns (26 U.S.C. §7206(2)) and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment plus one year supervised release.
The judgment ordered $79,325 restitution, representing tax loss attributable to the counts of conviction that had not been collected from Johnson’s clients before sentencing.
Johnson did not challenge conviction or sentence length but argued the prosecution should have disclosed how much the government might still collect from her clients because those collections could reduce her restitution.
Government had already recovered some tax payments (original loss exceeded $150,000); that information appeared in the presentence report and was available to Johnson before sentencing.
The key legal question was whether tax collections from third parties (Johnson’s clients) must be credited against the restitution award and whether nondisclosure violated Brady.
Johnson also challenged several supervised-release conditions and claimed her waiver of having conditions read aloud violated due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether government’s undisclosed tax collections were Brady material	Johnson: Collections were exculpatory and should have been disclosed	Gov: Collections were not concealed; presentence report showed collections; Brady doesn’t apply to available information	No Brady violation; information was available and not suppressed
Whether third-party tax collections must be credited against restitution under §3664	Johnson: Collections should reduce restitution she owes	Gov: §3664(f)(1)(B) bars considering third-party compensation so restitution need not be reduced	Court: §3664(f)(1)(B) sets base loss; §3664(j) and joint-and-several principles require credit for third-party collections
Whether failure to disclose collection details before sentencing required by restitution statute	Johnson: Nondisclosure affected restitution amount	Gov: No duty to disclose collections pre-sentencing if restitution base is set; credit occurs against judgment	Court: No disclosure required because credit will be given against restitution; statutory scheme covers credits post-award
Validity of waiver and vagueness of supervised-release conditions	Johnson: Waiver of reading conditions violated due process; several conditions vague/unconstitutional	Gov: Waiver was voluntary; conditions ("judicial district", "reasonable") are clear and statutory or commonly used	Court: Waiver was voluntary and binding; no plain error on conditions; terms held valid

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (double recovery norm in restitution context)
United States v. Morris, 80 F.3d 1151 (7th Cir. 1996) (Brady does not apply to information available to the defendant)
United States v. Wilson, 901 F.2d 378 (4th Cir. 1990) (similar principle on availability of information and Brady)
United States v. Malone, 747 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2014) (§3664(f)(1)(B) governs setting base restitution amount)
United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2016) (approving choice to waive reading of supervised-release conditions)
United States v. Ortiz, 817 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2016) (vagueness limits on supervision-"jurisdiction" language)
United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (endorsing use of "reasonable" to limit probation officer authority)
United States v. Tucker, 217 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2000) (crediting third-party collections against restitution)
United States v. Helmsley, 941 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1991) (third-party recoveries reduce criminal restitution)