United States v. Lorie Westerfield
714 F.3d 480
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lorie Westerfield, an Illinois title agent/attorney, facilitated five fraudulent real estate transfers in a mortgage fraud scheme relying on stolen identities.
- Scheme used fake buyers/sellers and multiple lenders, with closings guided by Westerfield but lenders unaware of fraud.
- Westerfield was charged with four counts of wire fraud tied to four transactions; one transaction she facilitated was not charged.
- She was convicted on three counts after trial; government relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.
- Appeal challenged sufficiency of evidence, admission of a co-defendant’s testimony, sentencing calculations, and restitution amount.
- Court affirmed Westerfield’s conviction and sentence, holding sufficiency met, testimony admissible, and no plain error in sentencing/restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for wire fraud | Westerfield claimed lack of intent; argued evidence insufficient | Evidence showed she acted as a title agent in standard real estate work | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could find knowledge/intent to defraud |
| Admission of Johnson's testimony | Johnson’s statements about Westerfield’s role were admissible as part of the scheme | Testimony improperly admitted as lacking Rule 602 personal knowledge | No abuse of discretion; Johnson testified with personal knowledge and lay-opinion basis |
| Calculation of loss under § 2B1.1(b)(1) | Use total loss from all five transactions; supports higher offense level | Only three convicted transactions should drive loss | Court did not err; loss range remained within 14-level increase for either figure |
| Restitution amount under MVRA | Restitution should reflect all five fraudulent transactions upon joint/ several liability | MVRA findings required; potential error in increasing restitution | No plain error; district court justified increase to $916,300 as single scheme with co-defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carrillo, 435 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2006) (ostrich instruction permissible for proving guilty knowledge via circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Owens, 301 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2002) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- United States v. Wantuch, 525 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2008) (lay opinion testimony rationally based on perception )
- United States v. Duarte, 950 F.2d 1255 (7th Cir. 1991) (requirement to state key findings for relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(2))
- United States v. Patel, 131 F.3d 1195 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognition that district courts may not be judged on 'magic words' for findings)
- United States v. Salem, 597 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2010) (decision on requirements for finding scope of scheme in sentencing)