999 F.3d 464
7th Cir.2021Background
- Michael Jarigese, vice president of Castle Construction and president of Tower Contracting, signed three Markham city contracts (city hall, senior living facility, park building) designated as "design-build" (no public bidding).
- Mayor David Webb solicited a $100,000 bribe from Jarigese for the park project; Jarigese delivered a $75,000 check to KAT Remodeling and multiple cash payments later, plus a $10,000 check disguised in Tower records.
- Webb received additional bribes from other contractors (Summers, Letke) routed through sham entities (KAT Remodeling, KAT Realty Investments); Webb cooperated and pleaded guilty to related charges.
- A superseding indictment charged Jarigese and Tower with nine counts of wire fraud and one count of bribery for participating in the bribery scheme and concealing payments; a jury convicted Jarigese on all counts.
- District court sentenced Jarigese to 41 months (bottom of guidelines). On appeal he challenged evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, several procedural sentencing errors (including Rule 32 questioning and PSR adoption), and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: evidentiary admissions were proper, the evidence was sufficient, the procedural sentencing errors were harmless, and the within-guidelines sentence was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Jarigese's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence of Webb's other bribe solicitations | Evidence of Webb's payments from Summers and Letke was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 404(b)/403 | Evidence showed the charged scheme and concealment methods; one participant's acts in furtherance are admissible against co-participants | Admissible — evidence was direct proof of the alleged scheme; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Conviction relied on self-interested, impeached testimony of Webb and thin documentary proof | Jury could credit Webb and corroborating evidence; reasonable to find elements beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficient — viewing evidence in government's favor, convictions supported |
| Failure to ask defendant about PSR per Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(A)(1) | Court never directly asked if he read/discussed/contested the PSR; harms his ability to correct factual errors | Government concedes omission but argues harmlessness because parties and court knew correct facts and court didn’t rely on the mis-title | Harmless error — record shows parties corrected title and court relied on accurate role/responsibility, not the PSR typo |
| Court not adopting PSR at hearing; reliance on alleged perjured defense witness | Failure to adopt PSR and court’s comment that defendant called a perjured witness were procedural errors requiring remand | No prejudice: court adequately explained sentence orally; misstatement corrected and court did not base sentence on it | Harmless — oral reasons sufficient; misstatement corrected and not dispositive |
| Substantive unreasonableness / sentencing disparity under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) | Sentence (41 months) excessive compared to other public-corruption defendants | Within-guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; no showing of unwarranted disparity | No plain error — within properly calculated guidelines range; defendant failed to rebut presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chhibber, 741 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Simon, 727 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidence rulings)
- United States v. Warner, 498 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2007) (acts of one participant in furtherance of a scheme admissible against others)
- United States v. Adeniji, 221 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 2000) (authority on admission of co-scheme evidence)
- United States v. Cherry, 920 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 2019) (sufficiency review standards; credibility deference to jury)
- United States v. Cruse, 805 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2015) (sufficiency-of-evidence review)
- United States v. Calabrese, 572 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2009) (when testimony is so implausible it cannot stand)
- United States v. Rone, 743 F.2d 1169 (7th Cir. 1984) (Rule 32(i)(A)(1) three-question requirement at sentencing)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Luna, 937 F.2d 1208 (7th Cir. 1991) (importance of district court questioning under Rule 32)
- United States v. Olson, 450 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2006) (harmless-error analysis for sentencing defects)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (guidelines advisory; procedural-review framework)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) (within-guidelines sentences not unreasonable under § 3553(a)(6))