United States v. Ruby Parker, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10474

Parker, former LaSalle Bank teller, was convicted of three counts of bank fraud and one count of embezzlement by a bank employee; sentence 30 months, including an obstruction of justice enhancement.
Eight temporary checks stolen by Parker, totaling about $76,450, were cashed through a scheme with co-schemer Olivera; loss to bank approximately $49,890 after recoveries.
Parker disputed trial delays, competency proceedings, and pretrial continuances; the court conducted multiple hearings over 2010–2011 and authorized various continuances.
She underwent a competency evaluation in 2011; meanwhile, defense representation changed several times, with Parker proceeding pro se at times.
Trial occurred November 7, 2011, more than eighteen months after arraignment; the district court had excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act for ends-of-justice and continuity of counsel.
On appeal, Parker challenges Speedy Trial Act application, sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, defense witness rights, and the obstruction-of-justice enhancement; convictions affirmed but sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy Trial Act compliance	Parker argues the clock was violated by improper exclusions.	Parker contends the court erred in excluding delays after limits expired.	No Speedy Trial violation; valid ends-of-justice/continuity findings supported exclusions.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence fails to prove scheme, intent, and FDIC-insured status beyond reasonable doubt.	Olivera’s testimony and documentary evidence suffice to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence supports guilt on all counts; sufficiency affirmed.
Ruling on government’s motion in limine	EEOC evidence should be admitted to show bias and support defense.	EEOC findings were not independently admissible; bias approach limited.	No abuse of discretion; limits properly applied to show bias.
Right to call defense witnesses	Parker was deprived of witnesses due to procedural confusion in subpoena/attendance.	Defendant’s counsel controlled witness call; Sixth Amendment right not violated.	Not deprived of right; decisions on calling witnesses were strategic and supported.
Obstruction of justice enhancement	District court properly found perjury and applied enhancement.	Findings insufficient to establish perjury, materiality, and willfulness.	Findings inadequate; obstruction enhancement vacated and remanded for proper findings.

Bloate v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1345 (Supreme Court 2010) (pretrial motion delay may be excluded only with § 3161(h)(7) findings)
Vallone v. United States, 698 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2012) (ends-of-justice findings need not be contemporaneous on the record)
Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (Supreme Court 2006) (record must reflect ends-of-justice findings; timing matters)
Wasson v. United States, 679 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of legal interpretations; abuse-of-discretion review for exclusions)
O’Connor v. United States, 656 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2011) (automatic exclusions for certain pretrial delays; conditions apply)
Dunnigan v. United States, 507 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court 1993) (perjury enhancement requires explicit predicates of falsity, materiality, willfulness)
Johnson v. United States, 680 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 2012) (perjury findings may be aggregated to support obstruction enhancement)