United States v. Patel, 921 F.3d 663

From 2013–2014 Patel, via First Farmers Financial, sold 26 fabricated USDA‑guaranteed loans to Pennant, causing investors to pay ~$179 million; Patel forged documents and controlled the primary bank account receiving funds.
Pennant discovered inconsistencies in 2014; Patel was arrested and later indicted on five counts of wire fraud; he pleaded guilty in 2016.
While on bond and after repeatedly obtaining continuances by claiming he would help recover funds, Patel attempted to flee to Ecuador days before sentencing; agents arrested him with documents and funds evidencing a planned asylum flight.
Probation revised the PSR after the flight: obstruction enhancement added, acceptance‑of‑responsibility credit removed, resulting in an adjusted Guidelines offense level that yielded a life range (capped to 100 years by statute).
District court found Patel more culpable than his co‑schemer Fisher, denied certain guideline reductions, considered § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Patel to 25 years’ imprisonment and ~$174.8 million restitution.
Patel appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness (disparity with Fisher, failure to consider § 3553(a) factors, improper reliance on patriotism/psychology, and overall excessiveness). The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Patel's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing court failed to avoid unwarranted disparity with co‑defendant Fisher	Patel: 25 yrs creates unwarranted disparity with Fisher (max 10 yrs) given comparable culpability	Court: differences in conduct and post‑offense behavior (flight, new fraud, control of funds) justify disparity	No procedural error; disparity justified and discretionary
Whether court failed to consider all § 3553(a) factors	Patel: court did not explicitly state it considered every § 3553(a) factor	Court: explicit discussion and overall statement show consideration; no checklist required	No procedural error; factors considered sufficiently
Whether court relied on improper factors (patriotism, psychological speculation)	Patel: judge’s comments about Ecuador and patriotism and psychological remarks were improper	Court: remarks related to lack of remorse and need to promote respect for law; not a diatribe or basis for sentence	No procedural error; comments tied to permissible § 3553(a) considerations
Whether 25‑year sentence was substantively unreasonable	Patel: sentence is excessive and unjustified given mitigation and comparison to others	Court: below‑Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; record supports higher culpability and relevant § 3553(a) considerations	Sentence substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural requirements and abuse‑of‑discretion review for sentencing)
United States v. Solomon, 892 F.3d 273 (7th Cir. 2018) (district court may compare co‑defendants’ culpability; review of disparity claims)
United States v. Gill, 889 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 2018) (treatment of co‑defendant disparity does not necessarily render sentence unreasonable)
United States v. Duncan, 479 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2007) (limits on judicial review of prosecutorial charging discretion)
United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2010) (court need not explicitly recite each § 3553(a) factor; record must show consideration)
United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009) (following Guidelines curtails unwarranted disparities)
United States v. Tounisi, 900 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 2018) (court’s consideration of mitigation may be implicit if record shows it)
United States v. Hill, 683 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2012) (criminal history differences can justify sentencing disparities)