United States v. Thaddeus Bania
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9341
7th Cir.2015Background
- Bania convicted on 11 counts for rigging Local 743 union elections (2005–2007).
- He and Walston diverted ballots, changed member addresses, and cast fraudulent votes for the Unity Slate.
- December 2004 rerun elects Unity Slate after voiding October results; Walston and Lopez benefit.
- District court imposed restitution of $900,936 and concurrent forfeiture; jointly and severally liable.
- Bania did not appeal; later 2255 and 3583(e)(1) motions sought relief; district court denied due to restitution arrearage; issue on appeal concerns belated restitution challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear Bania's belated restitution motion. | Bania argues district court can review miscalculation. | Government maintains motion is untimely and jurisdictionally barred. | Yes; district court lacked jurisdiction; time-barred under Rule 35 and related rules. |
| Whether Rule 35(a) deadline governs restitution challenges and is jurisdictional. | Rule 35 motion could correct clear errors in sentence. | Rule 35 deadline is jurisdictional and expired long ago. | Rule 35(a) deadline is jurisdictional; four-and-a-half years elapsed, preventing review. |
| Whether MVRA or other statutes permit belated challenge to restitution. | MVRA could allow reconsideration of restitution. | MVRA does not permit belated challenges or reopen restitution now. | No; MVRA or related rules do not authorize belated restitution challenge. |
| Whether Rodriguez’s restitution appeal affects Bania’s challenge to his own restitution. | Rodriguez’s remand shows possible non-causation of loss by Bania. | Rodriguez’s result does not negate Bania’s causation; Bania kingpin status remains. | Rodriguez’s outcome does not salvage Bania’s causation argument; Bania’s challenges fail on timeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. De la Torre, 327 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional Rule 35 issue review)
- United States v. Wisch, 275 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2001) (Rule 35 timeliness is jurisdictional)
- United States v. Baldwin, 414 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2005) (Rule 35 sanctions period depriv[es] authority if lapsed)
- United States v. Parker, 508 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 35 remedial actions; authority implications)
- United States v. Rollins, 607 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2010) (Rule 4(b) 14-day notice mandatory)
- Young v. United States, 489 F.3d 313 (7th Cir. 2007) (restitution challenge must be direct appeal)
- United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006) (restitution as part of sentence; direct appeal required)
- United States v. Rhodes, 330 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2003) (loss for restitution; actual loss standard)