United States v. Victoria Harris
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10928
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Harris, a MetLife broker-affiliate, diverted nearly $6 million of client funds over eight years for personal use.
- She manipulated deposits, created a false paper trail, and used MEIG accounts to conceal misappropriations.
- Investigators traced losses totaling about $10.94 million; roughly $4.06 million was reinvested for clients, with the rest used personally.
- MetLife and authorities identified 79 victims, including MetLife itself, which reimbursed numerous direct victims.
- Harris pled guilty to mail fraud and money laundering and was sentenced to 210 months in prison; restitution of about $6.81 million was ordered.
- On appeal, Harris challenged victim-count methodology, denial of a fourth continuance to challenge loss calculations, and the sentence’s substantive reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counting married couples as two victims affects the guideline | Harris argues joint accounts mean only one loss per couple. | McGee Harris contends the district court treated each spouse as a separate victim. | Counted as two victims; error not shown; 57 victims would not alter range. |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a fourth continuance | Object to total loss amount could change the guideline range. | Further delay would not meaningfully affect loss calculations or range. | No abuse of discretion; denial was reasonable and unlikely to change the range. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under § 3553(a) | First-time offender, white-collar crime, deterring recidivism not served by long sentences. | Court emphasized deterrence, victim impact, and uniqueness of Harris's conduct. | Sentence within guideline range and procedurally supported; presumption of reasonableness upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McKinney, 686 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2012) (principles for reviewing guideline interpretation and factual findings)
- United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2008) (jointly held accounts may count both spouses as victims for §2B1.1(b)(2))
- United States v. Densmore, 210 F. App’x 965 (11th Cir. 2006) (cites joint-victim reasoning for victims in fraud cases)
- United States v. Rinaldi, 461 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2006) (upheld denial of fourth continuance where evidence unlikely to affect loss)
- United States v. Knorr, 942 F.2d 1217 (7th Cir. 1991) (mere possibility of additional evidence insufficient to delay sentencing)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (guideline-presumption of reasonableness in within-range sentences)
- United States v. Shannon, 518 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (requires meaningful consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (sentencing guidelines advisory; requires reasonableness review)
- United States v. Meschino, 643 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2011) (within-guideline sentence presumed reasonable)