United States v. Gilbert Freeman, 664 F. App'x 583

Freeman participated in a multi-year, cross-border timeshare fraud that used fictitious companies and employees (lead generators, liners, closers, escrow callers) to obtain more than $4.8 million from over 1,400 victims.
He pleaded guilty to five counts of wire fraud and admitted roles including obtaining owner lists, creating websites/ads, and opening bank accounts for the fake companies.
The government and PSR attributed a larger leadership role to Freeman (co-leader with “Moe”), relying on emails, grand jury and plea statements, and testimony from co-schemers and employees.
The probation officer recommended a four-level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) organizer/leader enhancement, raising Freeman’s guideline range from 135–168 months to 210–262 months.
Freeman initially (through former counsel) accepted the enhancement, later retracted through new counsel, arguing the evidence was unreliable and insufficient and that he lacked coercive control over others.
The district court applied the enhancement, relying on co-defendant statements and documentary proof, and sentenced Freeman to 240 months; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliability of evidence at sentencing	Govt: court may consider co-defendants’ statements and other evidence; rules of evidence not required at sentencing	Freeman: relied primarily on grand jury/plea statements — untested hearsay lacking corroboration	Court: such evidence may be used if sufficiently reliable; bare denial insufficient to trigger need for further proof; affirmed
Sufficiency for § 3B1.1(a) leadership enhancement	Govt: Freeman’s conduct (decision-making, recruiting, pay control, use of his name/accounts, largest profit share, emails) shows leader/co-leader status	Freeman: lacked power to coerce or direct participants; no evidence of authority over others	Court: focus is relative culpability; evidence showed decision authority, recruitment, profit share, control over employees; enhancement proper
Right to confront/co-defendant witnesses at sentencing	Govt: sentencing does not require cross-examination; corroboration and consistency support reliance	Freeman: inability to cross-examine plea/grand jury witnesses deprived him of chance to challenge reliability	Court: cross-examination not required; without specific reasons to doubt statements, court may rely on them
Procedural challenge to sentencing process	Freeman: procedural flaw in relying on untested statements and applying enhancement	Govt: PSR and record supported enhancement; Freeman offered only denial	Court: no procedural error; sentencing affirmed

United States v. Tankson, 836 F.3d 873 (7th Cir.) (district court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence at sentencing if sufficiently reliable)
United States v. Isom, 635 F.3d 904 (7th Cir.) (same principle regarding use of evidence at sentencing)
United States v. White, 639 F.3d 331 (7th Cir.) (sentencing courts may consider hearsay and testimonial statements if reliable)
United States v. Williams-Ogletree, 752 F.3d 658 (7th Cir.) (defendant’s bare denial does not obligate government to corroborate contested sentencing evidence)
United States v. Weaver, 716 F.3d 439 (7th Cir.) (§ 3B1.1 inquiry centers on relative culpability; control and decisionmaking are relevant factors)
United States v. Vasquez, 673 F.3d 680 (7th Cir.) (organizer/leader enhancement standards)
United States v. Mendoza, 576 F.3d 711 (7th Cir.) (application of § 3B1.1 factors)
United States v. Cooper, 767 F.3d 721 (7th Cir.) (courts may consider Application Note 4 factors in role determination)
United States v. Figueroa, 682 F.3d 694 (7th Cir.) (control/authority shown when defendant directs others and evaluates performance)