United States v. Williams
892 F.3d 242
7th Cir.2018Background
- Williams bought a condominium, fell behind on payments, and filed five Chapter 13 petitions between 2003 and 2010; each petition invoked the automatic stay and was later dismissed.
- To prevent eviction, Williams twice transferred title temporarily to a companion, Ekkehard Wilke; Wilke obtained mortgages on the property and filed bankruptcy, but Wilke admitted at trial he never paid and had testified falsely to benefit Williams.
- Indicted in 2014 on five counts of bankruptcy fraud, Williams proceeded to a jury trial in 2016; Wilke cooperated with the government and testified against her.
- At trial the district court limited cross-examination about a class-action suit Williams filed against the condominium association (SCCA) and about comparative treatment/payment plans, permitting only questions showing potential bias but barring substantive inquiry into the underlying debt.
- At sentencing the court applied a 10-level Guidelines enhancement for loss (> $150,000) and a 2-level enhancement for 10+ victims, adopting the government’s $193,291 loss estimate (increase in liabilities between first and last bankruptcies) and concluding multiple creditors suffered pecuniary harm; Williams received 46 months’ imprisonment (below Guidelines).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated the Confrontation Clause by limiting cross-examination of government witnesses about SCCA litigation and differential treatment | Williams: limits prevented exposing witness bias and demeanor, denying effective confrontation | Govt: questioning on bias was permitted; deeper inquiry risked irrelevant collateral attack on underlying debt and juror confusion | Court affirmed: limits did not foreclose exposing bias; restrictions were within district court’s discretion to avoid prejudice/confusion |
| Whether the district court erred in calculating total loss for Guidelines purposes | Williams: loss should be limited to SCCA-related loss (~$45,694) because scheme aimed to keep the condo | Govt: loss equals increased liabilities to creditors caused by repeated fraudulent stays — $193,291 | Court affirmed: $193,291 estimate reasonable and within permissible calculations; loss caused by fraudulent invocation of stays |
| Whether the court erred in counting number of victims under §2B1.1 | Williams: only SCCA suffered pecuniary harm | Govt: each creditor affected by the automatic stays is a victim; creditor count rose materially between 2003 and 2009 | Court affirmed: creditors prevented from collection by stays are victims; 10+ victims shown |
| Standard of review for cross-examination and Guidelines findings | N/A | N/A | Court applied de novo review to core Confrontation issues then abuse-of-discretion; Guidelines factual findings reviewed for clear error and upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Linzy, 604 F.3d 319 (7th Cir. 2010) (Confrontation Clause allows effective but not unlimited cross-examination)
- United States v. Manske, 186 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 1999) (exposing witness bias is a core Confrontation right)
- United States v. White, 737 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 2013) (district court need only make a reasonable estimate of loss under §2B1.1)
- United States v. Rosen, 726 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir. 2013) (review standard for sentencing loss and Guidelines calculations)
- United States v. Sutton, 582 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2009) (government must show pecuniary harm to count victims under §2B1.1)
- United States v. Middlebrook, 553 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2009) (creditors can qualify as victims in bankruptcy-fraud Guidelines calculations)