United States v. LaTonja Spencer, 787 F.3d 1153

Gwendolyn Jackson (president/co-owner of Chicago Global) and Latonja Spencer (loan officer) participated in a mortgage-fraud scheme (2004–2008) that used nominee buyers, false loan applications, and inflated sales to extract surplus proceeds; Bobbie Brown Jr. led the scheme.
Jackson recruited nominees, supplied funds while concealing their true source, and caused lender losses of about $8.5 million; Spencer submitted or helped prepare false borrower information for 12 transactions, causing about $3.09 million in losses.
Both were indicted (June 3, 2008) on fraud counts; tried jointly with codefendants and convicted on all counts charged.
Sentences: Jackson—112 months and $8,515,570 restitution; Spencer—36 months and $3,091,050 restitution. Both appealed.
On appeal, Jackson challenged exclusion of a November 2007 police report of Brown’s alleged domestic battery and the district court’s imposition of a two-level obstruction enhancement; Spencer argued the district court abused its discretion by denying severance and also challenged an obstruction enhancement.

Issue	Jackson's Argument	Spencer's Argument	Held
Exclusion of evidence of Brown’s physical abuse	The excluded November 2007 police report and related evidence were necessary to corroborate her fear-based defense that she was unaware of the fraud	N/A	The court held the district court did not abuse discretion: the report was a post‑event incident occurring after the last offense and therefore properly excluded; Jackson nevertheless testified at trial about being intimidated and abusive behavior was admitted.
Severance of Spencer’s trial from codefendants	N/A	Spencer argued her defense was mutually antagonistic with codefendant Edgardo Hernal and warranted severance	Waived (no motion joined) and, alternatively, denial was not an abuse of discretion; mutually antagonistic defenses alone do not require severance.
Obstruction enhancement for perjury (Jackson)	Enhancement was improper because district court found she did not deliberately or knowingly lie at trial	Government argued testimony supported enhancement	Vacated as to Jackson: district court’s own finding that she did not deliberately lie negates the willful-intent element required for perjury; remanded for resentencing.
Obstruction enhancement for perjury (Spencer)	Adopted Jackson’s argument by reference	Government and district court found Spencer knowingly shaded the truth and intended to mislead	Affirmed as to Spencer: district court found she knowingly misrepresented facts, supporting the two-level enhancement.

United States v. Khan, 771 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing district court evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Savage, 505 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2007) (post‑offense threats/evidence may be excluded when offered to support coercion/mental‑state defenses)
United States v. Del Valle, 674 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing denial of severance)
United States v. Plato, 629 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2010) (waiver for failure to renew severance motion at close of evidence)
Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (severance required only if joint trial would compromise a specific trial right or prevent reliable jury verdict)
United States v. Cheek, 740 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for obstruction‑of‑justice enhancements)
United States v. Riney, 742 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2014) (perjury suffices for § 3C1.1 enhancement; elements required)
United States v. Chychula, 757 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2014) (definition of perjury: false, material testimony with willful intent)
Perez v. Illinois, 488 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2007) (perfunctory or undeveloped appellate arguments are waived)