United States v. Ronnanita Fluker
698 F.3d 988
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- This is a consolidated appeal from a three‑week trial convicting Roy Fluker, Jr., Roy Fluker III, and Ronnanita Fluker of mail and wire fraud related to Ponzi‑like schemes (Spend and Redeem; Housing Program).
- The schemes operated via All Things in Common, LLC (MTE) and Locust International, LLC; participants paid upfront and were promised large monthly returns, which were false.
- The Housing Program used Reverse Mortgage and 35 Percent Equity subprograms; A‑Buyers facilitated loans for ineligible participants.
- The receivership of funds and intermingling of Spend and Redeem and Housing Program proceeds showed no legitimate investment, with money used for salaries, travel, and personal expenses.
- The Illinois consent orders acknowledged the fraud but the district court admitted the consent orders at trial; trial convictions followed in 2010 and sentencing occurred in 2011, with the present appeal challenging evidentiary rulings and sentence calculations.
- The panel affirmed all convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent Order admissibility and prejudice | Roy Jr. contends admission was prejudicial and confusing | Government necessary to prove fraud; limiting instruction adequate | Waived challenge; admission upheld with limiting instruction |
| Prior felony convictions admissibility | Convictions improperly admitted to impeach Roy Jr. | Pretrial rulings allowed questioning; Ohler governs; defendant opened door | No reversible error; Ohler guidance applied; admissions occurred via direct examination by Roy Jr. |
| Authentication and hearsay of emails | Emails lack proper authentication and are hearsay | Circumstantial authentication suffices; emails rebut defense and provide context | Emails properly admitted; authentication satisfied; not hearsay for truth but for context |
| Ostrich instruction | No evidence of deliberate avoidance by Ronnanita | Evidence showed deliberate avoidance; instruction appropriate | Instruction properly given; supported by record |
| Sentencing—3B1.1, loss, and victims | Enhancement, loss calculations, and victims number properly attributed to each defendant | Disputes over extent, attribution, and counts | Enhancement and loss/victim attributions upheld; sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (U.S. 2000) (precluding appeal on pretrial conviction evidence when defendant themselves introduced it)
- Clarett v. Roberts, 657 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2011) (cannot appeal admission of evidence defendant himself opened door to)
- United States v. Javell, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18377 (7th Cir. 2012) (addressed co‑defendant limiting instruction issue (noted in opinion))
- United States v. Gaona, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20787 (7th Cir. 2012) (waiver principles for evidentiary objections at trial)
- United States v. Pabey, 664 F.3d 1084 (7th Cir. 2011) (definition of 'participant' and 'otherwise extensive' under §3B1.1)
- United States v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2006) (deliberate avoidance and ostrich instruction standard)
- United States v. Garcia, 580 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2009) (ostrich instruction admissibility and pattern)
- United States v. Green, 648 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2011) (ostrich instruction framework; standard of review)
- United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000) (authentication considerations for email evidence)
- United States v. Hussein, 664 F.3d 155 (7th Cir. 2011) ('otherwise extensive' and participant considerations)