United States v. Verna Pilon
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22146
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Verna Pilon and her husband ran investment programs ("Mortgage Acceleration" and "Private Placement") that were Ponzi-like; about 40 investors entrusted $1,027,900 and lost $967,702.
- Pilon solicited investors by promising large returns and by invoking religious/humanitarian trappings (entities like Prayer International).
- Funds were diverted to personal expenses (vehicle, jewelry, real-estate deposit, travel, debt), and Pilon ignored a cease-offer order from the Illinois Department of Securities.
- Indicted for wire fraud, Pilon initially denied the factual proffer at a plea colloquy on the first trial day, then after eight government witnesses testified she pleaded guilty on day two.
- At sentencing the district court denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, applied a two-level enhancement for abuse of a position of trust, and imposed 78 months’ imprisonment plus restitution of $967,702.
Issues
| Issue | Pilon’s Argument | Government/District Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of acceptance-of-responsibility credit | Pilon: she decided to plead guilty before hearing trial testimony; denial was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding | Court: plea was at the "11th hour" and motivated by inevitability of conviction, not remorse | Affirmed — district court’s credibility-based finding not clearly erroneous (no credit) |
| Abuse-of-trust enhancement (§3B1.3) | Pilon: enhancement applied too broadly (challenged scope) | Court/PSR: Pilon held herself out as investment manager; victims entrusted funds and relied on her discretion | Waived at sentencing; alternatively, application not plain error — enhancement proper |
| Consideration of mitigation (health, family hardship) | Pilon: district court failed adequately to consider her medical problems and family burden | Court: considered but found arguments not persuasive given seriousness, targeting of vulnerable victims, and Pilon’s conduct | Affirmed — court sufficiently considered mitigation commensurate with presentation |
| Substantive reasonableness of 78-month sentence | Pilon: age, health, family ties, lack of criminal history, and low statistical recidivism make the sentence unreasonable | Court: within-Guidelines sentence justified by seriousness, broad/callous targeting of vulnerable victims, deterrence, and concerns about recidivism based on defendant’s attitude | Affirmed — within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable and adequately justified |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walsh, 723 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Guidelines application)
- United States v. Redmond, 667 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2012) (pleading at the eleventh hour can justify denial of acceptance credit)
- United States v. Ritsema, 31 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 1994) (reversal where denial rested on acceptance-of-responsibility for irrelevant conduct)
- United States v. Vasquez, 673 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing forfeiture and waiver of objections at sentencing)
- United States v. Sierra, 188 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 1999) (elements for §3B1.3 abuse-of-trust enhancement)
- United States v. Anderson, 604 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2010) (plain-error framework)
- United States v. Miranda, 505 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2007) (district court must consider §3553(a) factors but need not address every argument)
- United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (judicial economy permits passing over clearly meritless arguments)
- United States v. Gary, 613 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2010) (general hardships often need no extended discussion)
- United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008) (extraordinary family circumstances require careful consideration)
- United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2010) (acknowledgement of mitigation arguments suffices if court considered them)
- United States v. Moreland, 703 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 2012) (age and infirmity do not automatically justify leniency)
- United States v. Barnes, 660 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2011) (within-Guidelines sentence entitled to presumption of reasonableness)
- United States v. Scott, 555 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court need only give adequate justification for sentence)