United States v. White
883 F.3d 983
7th Cir.2018Background
- Vance White pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft arising from a multi-year retail check-fraud scheme that inflicted roughly $627,000 in losses across 32 stores.
- The indictment and plea factual basis described the scheme as running from fall 2009 through summer 2013, but White was in state custody for most of that period and was only at liberty roughly from Aug. 19, 2011 to Aug. 20, 2012.
- At sentencing the district court adopted a Guidelines loss amount based on the full multi-year scheme, yielding an offense level of 22 and a Guidelines range of 84–105 months; the court imposed a 59-month sentence (below the range) with concurrent state credit and a mandatory consecutive 24 months for identity theft.
- White objected that he should not be held accountable for co-schemers’ losses that occurred before he joined the conspiracy; the government relied largely on the plea agreement and presentence information to attribute the entire loss to White.
- The Seventh Circuit held the plea admissions and the record were ambiguous and insufficient to establish, by a preponderance, that White participated in the scheme before his confirmed post-release involvement; it vacated the sentence and restitution and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White may be held responsible under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 for losses caused before he joined the scheme | Gov: plea admissions and PSR show White participated from fall 2009 and thus he is accountable for whole loss | White: he was incarcerated for most of that period; plea language is ambiguous as to his personal participation during full date range | The plea admission was ambiguous on timing; government did not meet preponderance burden—cannot hold White responsible for pre-join losses without additional proof; remand required |
| Whether any error in the Guidelines loss calculation was harmless given a below-Guidelines sentence | Gov: sentence below range suggests no prejudice | White: miscalculation of loss still procedural error affecting the Guidelines anchor | Court: no clear signal the Guidelines error was harmless; must resolve merits of loss calculation |
| Whether plea admissions can establish relevant conduct dates for sentencing | Gov: broad plea and factual basis establish scheme dates and foreseeability of co-schemers’ acts | White: guilty plea admits only essential elements; date range in plea does not prove he participated throughout | Court: admissions do not conclusively prove participation for entire date range; dates are not essential elements and require clearer admissions or supporting evidence |
| Whether restitution under MVRA may include victims’ losses predating White’s actual conduct | Gov: restitution can track plea language and encompass earlier losses | White: MVRA limits restitution to losses caused by the offense of conviction; government must prove causation by preponderance | Court: restitution amount was unsupported and plainly erroneous as to pre-2009 losses; vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Sykes v. United States, 774 F.3d 1145 (7th Cir.) (explaining relevant-conduct analysis under § 1B1.3)
- Orillo v. United States, 733 F.3d 241 (7th Cir.) (government bears preponderance burden on loss amount and restitution)
- Paulette v. United States, 858 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir.) (guilty plea admits essential elements; plea language may not fix participation dates)
- Savage v. United States, 891 F.2d 145 (7th Cir.) (where defendant separately admitted participation throughout a period, admissions can support broader attribution)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines as the starting point and benchmark in sentencing)