United States v. Robert Falor
800 F.3d 407
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Falor pleaded guilty to tax evasion for willfully diverting hotel revenues into nominee accounts (2006–2008); PSR initially calculated $1.56M tax loss but district court included city/state occupancy taxes, increasing loss and Guidelines range; court sentenced him to 74 months and 3 years supervised release and later entered an amended written judgment adding standard conditions not orally pronounced.
- Jines pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine (2013); sentenced above the Guidelines to 96 months and 5 years supervised release; district court imposed multiple standard and special supervised-release conditions without explanation.
- Both appellants argued the district courts failed to consider principal mitigation arguments (Falor: cooperation and sentencing variances; Jines: cooperation/addiction and rehabilitation) and failed adequately to justify upward or downward departures/variances.
- Both appellants challenged discretionary supervised-release conditions as vague, overly broad, and lacking statutory findings required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).
- After briefing, this court decided United States v. Thompson, holding sentencing courts must consider § 3553(a) and § 3583(d) factors and explain reasons for discretionary supervised-release conditions; appellants moved to remand based on Thompson.
- The government agreed remand was appropriate; the Seventh Circuit found the districts committed procedural error by imposing discretionary conditions without findings and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district courts erred by imposing discretionary supervised-release conditions without stating findings tied to § 3553(a)/§ 3583(d) | Appellants (Falor/Jines): courts failed to make required findings or explain how conditions related to sentencing factors | Government/districts: imposed conditions but did not make the findings; government conceded error on this point | Reversed and remanded: courts must consider § 3553(a) and § 3583(d) and state reasons for discretionary conditions; error not harmless here |
| Whether sentencing courts adequately considered principal mitigation (e.g., cooperation) and justified variances/upward departures | Falor/Jines: courts failed to address key mitigation (cooperation, addiction, rehab) and insufficiently explained variances | District courts imposed variances/upward sentences without fully articulating reasons at sentencing | Vacated sentences and remanded for full resentencing where these arguments may be re-presented and considered |
| Whether written amended judgments differing from oral pronouncement were proper | Falor: amended judgment added standard conditions not pronounced at sentencing, creating procedural error | District court entered amended written terms post‑sentence without explanation | Sentence vacated and remanded for correction at resentencing; procedural error contributes to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (discretionary supervised-release conditions require findings tied to § 3553(a))
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (sentencing court must consider § 3553(a) and § 3583(d) and state reasons for supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Siegal, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014) (harmless-error framework applies to deficiencies in supervised-release findings)
- United States v. Shannon, 518 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court not required to address every factor in checklist fashion)
- United States v. Starko, 735 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2013) (rote, conclusory statements insufficient to justify sentencing choices)