United States v. Hallahan, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16835

Background

Hallahans engaged in a multiyear fraud scheme causing >$1M loss to investors.
They pled guilty to two conspiracy counts as part of plea agreements and fled for 12 years before sentencing.
They were eventually arrested in 2012 and pled guilty to failing to appear for sentencing.
At sentencing in 2012, the district court used 2012 Guidelines (not the 1998 version) and imposed above-guideline sentences of 270 months (Nelson) and 195 months (Janet).
The government sought to enforce appeal waivers in the plea agreements; the defendants challenged numerous aspects of the sentencing under Ex Post Facto, Guideline calculations, and waiver enforceability.
Janet challenged the district court’s handling of her motion to withdraw from the plea agreement, and both Hallahans challenged the guideline calculations, with Janet also challenging substantive reasonableness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of appeal waivers against challenges to guideline calculations	Hallahans argued waivers do not bar review.	Government contends waivers enforceable; EFP and other issues barred.	Appeal waivers enforceable, but do not bar review of guideline calculations related to failure to appear.
Ex Post Facto challenge to using 2012 Guidelines for offenses	Using newer Guidelines violated Peugh and Ex Post Facto.	One-book rule allows newer Guidelines for related offenses; no Ex Post Facto violation.	No Ex Post Facto violation; one-book rule applies.
Whether the base offense level for money laundering was correctly calculated	Miscalculated base level (seven vs six).	Guidelines version used; base level error alleged.	Base level miscalculation for conspiracy counts acknowledged; error did not compel relief given grouping with failure to appear.
Whether failure to appear sentencing was properly determined under Guidelines	Conspiracy counts' grouping affected failure-to-appear range; potential error.	Guideline range for failure to appear was properly integrated into total sentence.	No plain error; district court correctly computed and applied grouping and apportionment.
Whether Janet Hallahan could withdraw from plea agreement and related waiver	Motion to withdraw plea agreement was valid; laches barred.	Waiver enforcible; court should address withdrawal separately.	District court’s handling of withdrawal motion was not reversible; waivers enforceable.
Substantive reasonableness of Janet Hallahan’s above-guideline sentence	Sentence excessive given facts and mitigating factors.	Court properly weighed §3553(a) factors and victims’ impact.	No abuse of discretion; 195-month sentence affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006) (Ex post facto considerations in guideline application; governing rule for time of offenses vs sentencing.)
Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (U.S. 2013) (Ex post facto violation when new Guidelines raise range post-offense.)
United States v. Munoz, 718 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2013) (Flight can excuse leniency promises; government not breaching plea by absconding.)
Standiford v. United States, 148 F.3d 864 (7th Cir. 1998) (Plea agreement and plea treated as bound; fair-and-just standard applied.)
United States v. Diaz-Jimenez, 622 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2010) (Plea agreements; contract-law framing of government obligations.)
United States v. Dela Cruz, 144 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 1998) (Government breach; consequences for plea agreements.)
United States v. McGraw, 571 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2009) (Judicial estoppel arguments regarding misrepresentations of law.)
United States v. Vivit, 214 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2000) (One-book rule and ex post facto analysis pre-Peugh.)
United States v. Kirkpatrick, 589 F.3d 414 (7th Cir. 2009) (Guidelines variance and tying to total sentence.)
United States v. Morgan, 254 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2001) (Deterrence and punishment considerations for fugitives.)
United States v. Demaree, (already listed) (7th Cir. 2006) (See above.)