United States v. Lewis, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20557

Background

Lisa A. Lewis, formerly a registered broker, ran a seven‑year fraud scheme (2006–2013) posing as a Fidelity representative and embezzled over $2 million from at least 12 elderly victims (ages 75–92) by opening joint accounts, obtaining debit cards, and forging signatures.
Indicted on five counts of wire fraud, Lewis pled guilty to one count pursuant to a plea agreement in which the government agreed to recommend no more than 10 years’ imprisonment and stipulated to a Guidelines calculation producing an offense level of 30 (97–121 months).
The PSR added two enhancements (means of identification and obstruction), raising the total offense level to 32 (121–151 months); the government provided factual support for those enhancements to probation but disclaimed advocacy for them at sentencing.
At initial sentencing the district court adopted the PSR and imposed 15 years’ imprisonment. Lewis appealed only supervised‑release conditions; the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Thompson.
On remand Lewis for the first time argued the government breached the plea agreement; the district court refused to hear the untimely challenge (but alternatively rejected it on the merits) and again imposed a 15‑year sentence after applying a 2‑level vulnerable‑victim enhancement and rejecting one other enhancement.
On appeal Lewis argued (1) she did not waive the breach claim, (2) the government breached the plea agreement, (3) the vulnerable‑victim enhancement was improper, and (4) the 15‑year sentence was substantively unreasonable. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lewis waived her right to litigate an alleged breach of the plea agreement on remand	Lewis: remand was general (Thompson) so she could raise breach claims now	Government: Lewis could have raised breach at original sentencing/appeal; district court may decline new arguments on a general remand	Court: District court could refuse to hear the late breach claim but should have acknowledged its authority to consider new arguments; failure harmless because claim meritless
Whether the government breached the plea agreement	Lewis: government advocated for additional PSR enhancements and for a greater sentence contrary to the agreement	Government: plea reserved the right to provide information and make recommendations; it repeatedly recommended ≤10 years and did not request higher sentence	Court: No breach — government’s communications were within plea reservations and it consistently recommended at most 10 years
Whether the § 3A1.1 vulnerable‑victim enhancement was properly applied	Lewis: age alone insufficient and district relied only on age; also argued impermissible double‑counting with abuse‑of‑trust	Government: victims’ age plus other vulnerabilities (illness, cognitive decline, lack of computer skills, long‑term trust) supported enhancement; Guidelines allow overlap	Court: Enhancement proper — district relied on multiple vulnerabilities and double‑counting is permissible here
Whether the 15‑year sentence was substantively unreasonable	Lewis: sentence exceeds plea agreement maximum and Guidelines range; mitigating factors (no criminal history, remorse, nonviolent) warrant lower term	Government: seriousness, magnitude, victim harm, deterrence, need for restitution and public protection justify variance	Court: Sentence reasonable — court gave adequate § 3553(a) reasons and did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (Thompson remand vacates entire sentence and generally allows resentencing)
United States v. Mobley, 833 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2016) (scope of remand and district court’s discretion to consider new arguments on general remand)
United States v. Barnes, 660 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2011) (district court may decline to consider new evidence/arguments on general remand)
United States v. Malone, 815 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2016) (de novo review of plea agreement interpretation when facts undisputed)
Campbell v. Smith, 770 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2014) (prosecutorial breach of plea agreement actionable only if substantial)
United States v. Salazar, 453 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2006) (strong advocacy for harsh characterization of offense is not a breach if government honors recommendation limits)
United States v. Iriri, 825 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2016) (elderly victims often satisfy § 3A1.1 when financial security targeted)
United States v. Burnett, 805 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (using same conduct for multiple Guideline enhancements is generally permissible)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence)