United States v. Theodore Longust, 685 F. App'x 496

Theodore J. Longust, a Business Relationship Manager at Scott Credit Union, pled guilty to multiple counts including bank fraud, misapplication of funds, money laundering, and making a false loan document arising from roughly $13.7 million in losses to the credit union.
Over about six years Longust issued unauthorized and undocumented business loans, including approximately $1.7 million in advances to Windoor; he personally retained just under $200,000.
The district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 121–151 months and sentenced Longust to 121 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
At sentencing Longust argued for a below-Guidelines sentence, asserting limited personal enrichment, collateral consequences for his employment prospects, and that he issued loans primarily to keep Windoor in business — claiming Windoor knew the loans were fraudulent.
The district court acknowledged limited personal gain but emphasized the seriousness of the offense based on the credit union’s substantial losses, the scheme’s sophistication and duration, deterrence, and the victim-impact evidence; the court declined to credit Windoor’s alleged knowledge absent evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court failed to consider Longust’s intent to keep Windoor in business under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)	Government: sentence at bottom of Guidelines (121 months) appropriate given losses and breach of trust	Longust: sought below-Guidelines sentence because he primarily acted to keep Windoor afloat, not to enrich himself	Court: district court adequately considered intent and mitigation; emphasized harms and sophistication of scheme and affirmed sentence
Whether the district court improperly refused to consider Windoor’s alleged knowledge of the fraud	Gov: knowledge irrelevant to sentencing and 3553(a) factors	Longust: Windoor’s knowledge would make conduct less egregious and reduce need for deterrence	Court: refusal permissible because asserted knowledge did not affect defendant’s background/character and lacked evidentiary support; court may reject unsupported mitigation

United States v. Chapman, 694 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2012) (sentencing courts may reject mitigation arguments that lack factual support)
United States v. Diaz, 533 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court may decline to credit unsupported factual assertions at sentencing)