140 F.4th 893
7th Cir.2025Background
- Gary Matthews and Monte Brannan co-managed GEM Hospitality, LLC, which was redeveloping a hotel in Peoria, Illinois.
- Both diverted project funds for personal gain instead of repaying creditors, resulting in federal charges for mail fraud and money laundering.
- A jury found both appellants guilty; Brannan additionally faced conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering.
- On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, both defendants challenged their convictions, focusing primarily on sufficiency of the evidence and some procedural rulings from trial.
- Counsel for both appellants failed to comply with Circuit Rule 30 regarding necessary appendices to their briefs, complicating the review process.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions but ordered defense counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for procedural deficiencies in their briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Ample evidence of guilt via scheme and diversion of funds | Evidence did not show direct mailings or fraudulent intent | Evidence sufficient, convictions affirmed |
| Money laundering and conspiracy | Defendants knowingly concealed origins of funds | No knowledge or design to conceal, just financial transfers | Jury had sufficient evidence to convict |
| Failure to remove inattentive juror | N/A (defendants' claim) | District court erred by not dismissing juror | Issue waived due to lack of objection at trial |
| Failure to sever charges | N/A (defendants' claim) | District court erred by not severing charges for trial | Issue waived—no severance motion made at trial |
| Failure to admit evidence/reject jury instructions | N/A | Excluded evidence/jury instructions relevant to defense | Arguments undeveloped, no error shown |
| Appellate procedure (Rule 30 compliance) | N/A | N/A | Counsel must show cause for sanctions for rule violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (describes standard for sufficiency of the evidence—"any rational trier of fact" standard)
- United States v. Anderson, 988 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for sufficiency—viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government)
- United States v. Dooley, 578 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2009) (defendant can be responsible for mailings that are reasonably foreseeable)
- United States v. Britton, 289 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 2002) (fraudulent intent provable by circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Turner, 400 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2005) (elements of money laundering—require knowledge and concealment design)
- United States v. Flores, 929 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2019) (waiver of issues not raised at trial)
- United States v. States, 652 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2011) (failure to bring a motion to sever before trial waives the claim)
- Hill v. Porter Mem’l Hosp., 90 F.3d 220 (7th Cir. 1996) (failure to supply necessary documents undermines appellate review)
- United States v. Boliaux, 915 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2019) (dismissal or summary affirmance for noncompliance with Circuit Rule 30)