482 F. App'x 175
7th Cir.2012Background
- Rutley was charged with defrauding financial institutions via stolen identities.
- The scheme began in 1996 with Rutley cashing his deceased father’s VA pension checks.
- The scheme expanded to opening many bank accounts and lines of credit in others’ names, including his father’s.
- He was arrested in 2009, tried by jury, and convicted on 11 bank‑fraud counts, 1 wire‑fraud count, and 12 aggravated identity‑theft counts.
- District court sentenced him to 72 months’ imprisonment and about $205,000 in restitution; he timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of evidence from searches | Rutley argues searches were unconstitutional. | Waiver; suppression should be raised collateraly. | Frivolous on direct appeal; suppression not argued in collateral. |
| Apprendi and loss as to sentencing | Loss should be jury‑determined under Apprendi. | Guidelines are advisory; no jury requirement. | Apprendi does not require jury determination for advisory guidelines. |
| Restitution amount including interest | Interest can be included in restitution. | Interest should be excluded from loss for restitution. | Arguments frivolous; interest supported by authority; restitution proper. |
| Inclusion of VA pension in loss and restitution | VA payments were part of the loss. | Indictment not tied to VA losses; improper basis. | Loss and restitution properly calculated; broad basis permissible. |
| Criminal-history computation | Older convictions properly used for history category. | Some convictions beyond ten years should be excluded. | Consecutive fraud scheme with 1996–2009 timeline; inclusion upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search incident to arrest permits bag searches)
- United States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2010) (probable fair probability standard for home searches)
- United States v. Hudspeth, 459 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2006) (records broadly construed under warrant scope)
- United States v. Locke, 643 F.3d 235 (7th Cir. 2011) (MVRA restitution scope and victims broader than indictment)
- United States v. Smith, 218 F.3d 777 (7th Cir. 2000) (broadly defines victims for restitution under MVRA)