949 F.3d 1049
7th Cir.2020Background:
- Roy Collins was executive director of Kankakee Valley Park District and treasurer of the tax‑exempt Kankakee Valley Park Foundation (2011–2016); he pleaded guilty to mail and wire fraud.
- Crimes included misuse of district employees/equipment for a personal pond, misuse of a Park District credit card (~$42,600 unreported charges), vendor kickbacks, and theft of festival cash receipts.
- Collins arranged a $25,115 bank loan pledged to festival receipts while earlier vendor obligations remained unpaid.
- He pleaded guilty in 2017, admitted substantial relevant conduct, and a two‑day hearing resolved disputed facts including loss amount.
- District court sentenced him to concurrent 42‑month terms, two years supervised release, and later (in an amended judgment) ordered $194,383.51 restitution.
- Collins appealed the January 15, 2019 judgment (sentencing) but did not appeal the February 27, 2019 amended judgment fixing restitution.
Issues:
| Issue | Collins' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Loss amount for Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §2B1.1 enhancement) | District court overstated "actual loss" (disputes including credit‑card charges, festival ticket shortfall, band payments, bank loan) | Evidence supported the court’s reasonable loss estimates (credit card statements, festival accounting, unexplained withdrawals, loan used to cover prior thefts); clear‑error standard favors court | Court did not clearly err; loss exceeded thresholds for a ten‑level enhancement and sentencing range affirmed |
| 2. Acceptance of responsibility (§3E1.1 reduction) | Collins argued he should receive a two‑level reduction for acceptance | Collins repeatedly contested PSR, sought to dismiss or withdraw plea, denied relevant conduct and showed lack of full acknowledgment or remorse | District court reasonably denied the reduction; appellate court will not second‑guess factual finding |
| 3. Restitution merits (amounts to Park District/Foundation and bank) | Restitution amounts unsupported by the evidence | Government contends amounts are supported; but argues procedural default because Collins didn’t appeal amended judgment | Court declines to reach merits: appeal of restitution dismissed for procedural default (see Manrique) |
| 4. Appealability / Notice of Appeal (timeliness re: amended judgment) | Collins contends his single notice of appeal suffices despite later amended restitution judgment | Government invoked Manrique: when restitution reserved and later fixed in amended judgment, defendant must file a new notice after amended judgment | Under Manrique, single pre‑amendment notice is insufficient; restitution challenge is not properly before the court and is dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 737 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 2013) (review standard for loss‑calculation challenges)
- United States v. Robinson, 942 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2019) (acceptance‑of‑responsibility is a factual finding for the district court)
- United States v. Nichols, 847 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2017) (same principle on §3E1.1 factual review)
- Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (2017) (a notice of appeal filed before an amended judgment fixing restitution does not preserve appellate review of that later determination)