United States v. Littrice
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1782
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Littrice owned Diamond Accounting and prepared 4,385+ tax returns; in 2005 an IRS agent undercover visit exposed inflated/fraudulent deductions leading to refunds for the agent.
- Littrice was indicted in 2008 on 16 counts for willfully aiding in the preparation of false tax returns; 14 counts were ultimately proven at trial.
- Trial evidence showed a pattern of fabricated charitable contributions, job expenses, medical expenditures, and other deductions without taxpayer support.
- At sentencing the PSR identified 662 returns with similar fraudulent claims, yielding an alleged tax loss near $1.6 million after narrowing to largely uncontested cases.
- The district court reduced the loss estimate to $400,000–$1,000,000 to address possible sampling bias, and conducted multiple hearings before finalizing the figure.
- Littrice challenged the tax-loss calculation and argued due-process concerns; the district court's relevant-conduct finding and loss computation were ultimately upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial waiver review | Littrice seeks plain-error review for speedy-trial violations. | Littrice did not preserve; waiver applies; no plain-error review available. | Waived; no appellate plain-error review. |
| Consecutive sentences and Apprendi | Littrice contends consecutive sentences above statutory max require jury findings per Apprendi. | Each count's max is 36 months; total within 504-month max; no Apprendi issue. | No Apprendi issue; sentence within statutory maximum. |
| Tax loss calculation for relevant conduct | Littrice argues district court erred by relying on uncontested returns and civil audits to compute loss. | Government properly showed relevant conduct by a preponderance; pattern supported. | District court did not clearly err; tax-loss finding within permissible computations. |
| Health and family circumstances under §3553(a) | Littrice contends the district court inadequately considered health and family factors. | Court reasonably weighed §3553(a) factors given aggravating/mitigating considerations. | No abuse of discretion; court properly connected facts to sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d 746 (7th Cir.2008) (supports review standards for sentencing loss calculations)
- United States v. Frith, 461 F.3d 914 (7th Cir.2006) (defines use of relevant conduct in loss calculations)
- United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277 (4th Cir.2010) (upholds use of civil audits to support relevant conduct finding)
- United States v. O'Doherty, 643 F.3d 209 (7th Cir.2011) (affirmed reliance on PSR-derived facts when reliable)
- United States v. Porter, 23 F.3d 1274 (7th Cir.1994) (prosecutorial discretion to present conduct relevant to sentencing)
- United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634 (7th Cir.2011) (discusses prosecutorial discretion and evidence use in sentencing)
- United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459 (7th Cir.2009) (waiver rule under Speedy Trial Act)
- United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906 (7th Cir.2011) (plain-error review not available where defendant waived speedy-trial rights)
- United States v. Veysey, 334 F.3d 600 (7th Cir.2003) (Apprendi considerations in multi-count sentences)
- Taylor v. United States, 72 F.3d 533 (7th Cir.1995) (reliability standard for using information in PSR and sentencing)