United States v. Siamak Fard
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 252
7th Cir.2015Background
- Fard pled guilty to one count of wire fraud via blind plea; later sought to withdraw claiming not knowingly/voluntarily entered.
- District court held evidentiary hearing on whether plea arose from counsel's statement that government would dismiss if he pled guilty and cooperated; counsel denied making such a statement.
- Judge credited counsel and denied withdrawal; sentenced Fard with an obstruction of justice enhancement for alleged lied at the hearing and denied acceptance of responsibility.
- Indictments tied to mortgage fraud scheme involving nominees and false loan applications; loans obtained under names of nominees, with funds sometimes used for different properties.
- Plea hearing featured confusion about the elements and intent required for wire fraud; defendant resisted admission of any fraudulent intent, and record shows lack of clear explanation of fraudulent intent by the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the plea knowing and voluntary under Rule 11? | Fard contends the plea was not knowing/voluntary. | Fard argues complex charge and lack of understanding of fraudulent intent. | Plea vacated; not knowing/voluntary. |
| Did undisclosed promises influence the plea? | Fard alleges promises that case would be dismissed if he pled guilty. | Record shows potential negotiations; no explicit disclosure of promises. | Not decided due to vacatur; not necessary to resolve on appeal. |
| Was the Rule 11 error harmless, given the circumstances? | Error at plea hearing violated Rule 11 protections. | Government/proceedings could have supported a valid plea. | Error not harmless under Fernandez/Pineda-Buenaventura standards. |
| Did the sentencing determinations (obstruction enhancement, acceptance of responsibility) withstand scrutiny if plea were valid? | Challenges to obstruction and acceptance of responsibility. | District court exercised discretion on sentencing. | Not addressed on remand due to vacatur of the plea. |
| Should the case proceed with further Rule 11 adherence on remand? | Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fernandez, 205 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 2000) (knowing and voluntary plea; Rule 11 requirements importance; misperception of fraud concepts)
- United States v. LeDonne, 21 F.3d 1418 (7th Cir. 1994) (totality of circumstances standard for knowing plea)
- United States v. Pineda-Buenaventura, 622 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2010) (factors for understanding charge; complexity, intelligence, counsel, inquiry, proffer)
- United States v. Bradley, 381 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2004) (emphasizes need for court clarity on nature of charge)
- United States v. Polak, 573 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2009) (plea colloquy responsibilities of judge, prosecutor, and defense)
- United States v. Wetterlin, 583 F.2d 346 (7th Cir. 1978) (conspiracy terminology not self-explanatory to laypersons)