United States v. Robert McManus
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7261
7th Cir.2016Background
- In 2010 Mark Dziuban (owner of American Litho) recruited others to collect debts from three companies allegedly owing American Litho; collection efforts involved implied threats and coercive confrontations in Nevada, Wisconsin, and New Jersey.
- Frank Orlando (ink salesman) arranged meetings, relayed money and information, and recruited Carparelli, Brown, Iozzo, and others; Orlando participated in planning and later cover-up conversations.
- Robert McManus replaced Carparelli on an October 2010 trip to New Jersey/New York with Brown and Iozzo; the trio entered Concrete Media’s office unannounced, confronted VP Adam Goldenberg, and left after demanding payment; Goldenberg was frightened and called police.
- Brown later cooperated with the FBI and recordings of post-incident discussions were introduced at trial; indictments charged Hobbs Act violations (conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion).
- A jury convicted McManus and Orlando; McManus was sentenced to concurrent 60‑month terms (he appeals convictions), and Orlando received 46 months (he appeals sentencing adjustments and reasonableness).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of conspiracy evidence (McManus) | Gov: conduct, overlapping participants/methods, attempts to locate another target show knowledge of single overarching conspiracy | McManus: he only joined the NJ incident, lacked knowledge of Nevada/Wisconsin attempts; hub‑and‑spoke with no "rim" | Affirmed — a rational jury could find McManus knew scope and agreed to the overarching conspiracy |
| Sufficiency of attempted extortion (McManus) | Gov: entering uninvited, Brown’s intimidating presence, statements (“we will be back”) exploited fear to obtain payment | McManus: conduct was hard bargaining, brief, no explicit threat | Affirmed — reasonable jury could infer exploitation of fear and attempt to obtain property under Hobbs Act |
| Admission of co‑conspirator statements & severance (McManus) | Gov: statements admissible under FRE 801(d)(2)(E); joint trial proper | McManus: hearsay/admission error and prejudice from joint trial | Affirmed — sufficient evidence of conspiracy supports admissibility; limiting instructions and overlapping admissible evidence defeat prejudice claim |
| Minor‑role adjustment (Orlando) | Orlando: he did not participate in trips or actual extortions and was substantially less culpable | Gov: Orlando organized meetings, recruited participants, relayed funds/info, remained active and aided cover‑up | Affirmed — district court did not clearly err denying a two‑level minor role reduction |
| Sentencing reasonableness / disparity (Orlando) | Orlando: his 46‑month sentence is disproportionate to some co‑conspirators | Gov: differences due to cooperation, plea status, sentencing timing, and legitimate sentencing factors | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; disparities justified by cooperation and other legitimate factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dean, 574 F.3d 836 (7th Cir.) (standard for treating variance as sufficiency challenge)
- United States v. Garten, 777 F.3d 392 (7th Cir.) (review standard for sufficiency and knowledge element in conspiracy)
- United States v. Avila, 557 F.3d 809 (7th Cir.) (hub‑and‑spoke/rim analysis for single conspiracy)
- Rennell v. Rowe, 635 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir.) (distinguishing extortion from hard bargaining under the Hobbs Act)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S.) (limiting instructions often cure prejudice from joinder)
- United States v. Leiskunas, 656 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (role assessment; necessary role can still be minor)
- United States v. Pust, 798 F.3d 597 (7th Cir.) (admissibility under FRE 801(d)(2)(E) requires showing conspiracy, membership, and statements in furtherance)
- United States v. Diaz‑Rios, 706 F.3d 795 (7th Cir.) (factors for assessing role in conspiracy for §3B1.2)
- United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634 (7th Cir.) (sentencing disparities justified by cooperation rewards)