United States v. Willie Harris
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11315
7th Cir.2015Background
- From 2007–2010 Harris led a multi-state account-takeover and credit-card fraud conspiracy that added unauthorized users to cards, produced counterfeit cards, and caused about $300,000 loss across 50+ victims.
- April 7, 2008: a co-conspirator (Watkins) was arrested at a Chase branch using fraudulent cards; officers retrieved from Harris’ truck a backpack, notebook, and wallet; a notebook containing many victims’ personal data was retained by police after both defendants disclaimed ownership; fingerprint analysis linked the notebook to Harris.
- March 2010: law enforcement executed a search warrant at Harris’ Atlanta apartment and seized digital evidence and a second notebook.
- Harris was indicted (June 2010) on conspiracy, identity-theft, credit-card fraud, and aggravated-identity-theft counts; co-conspirators mostly pleaded guilty and several testified against him at trial.
- District court denied Harris’ pretrial motion to suppress the April 2008 notebook (automobile-exception and search-incident theories), and a jury convicted Harris on all counts. He was sentenced to 156 months (132 months + mandatory consecutive 24 months) and ordered to pay restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Harris' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of notebook recovered from truck | Arrest/search illegal; evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful arrest | Warrantless vehicle search valid under automobile exception (probable cause); search incident alternative; even if arrest illegal, Crews permits untainted evidence | Denial affirmed: probable cause supported automobile exception; Court needn't reach search-incident; Crews doctrine forecloses fruit argument |
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | Testimony was biased/incredible (co-defendants cooperated to avoid prison; friends/family) so evidence insufficient | Jury heard plea/cooperation/credibility arguments; appellate court cannot reweigh credibility | Convictions affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, jury verdict sustainable |
| Victim-count enhancement / Ex post facto challenge | 2008 Guidelines should apply (victim = those with actual loss); using 2009 amendment (broader victim definition) violates ex post facto | Offending conduct continued after 2009 amendment; Hallahan permits applying revised Guidelines when any conduct occurred after effective date | Held against Harris: 2009 amendment applies because scheme spanned post-2009 conduct; four-level 50+ victims enhancement proper |
| Role, sophisticated/relocation enhancements and overall sentence reasonableness | Enhancements (manager/supervisor, sophisticated means, relocation) improperly applied; sentence disparate/unreasonable compared to cooperating co-defendants | Trial testimony and corroborating evidence showed Harris recruited, directed, arranged travel, used aliases/false IDs, moved operations to evade detection; co-defendants received leniency for cooperation; district court below-Guidelines sentence already imposed | Enhancements and sentence affirmed: factual findings not clearly erroneous; sophisticated/relocation enhancements supported; below-Guidelines total sentence not unreasonable given Harris’ leadership and cooperation-based disparities |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Glover, 755 F.3d 811 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression factual findings and legal conclusions)
- United States v. Zahursky, 580 F.3d 515 (7th Cir.) (automobile-exception probable-cause analysis)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S.) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for probable cause)
- United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (U.S.) (illegal arrest does not automatically taint otherwise independent evidence)
- United States v. Groves, 470 F.3d 311 (7th Cir.) (sufficiency review standard — view evidence in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Griffin, 310 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir.) (appellate court may not reweigh witness credibility)
- United States v. Dennis, 115 F.3d 524 (7th Cir.) (testimony incredible as matter of law standard)
- United States v. Hallahan, 756 F.3d 962 (7th Cir.) (revised Guidelines apply if any conduct occurred after amendment effective date)
- United States v. Ghaddar, 678 F.3d 600 (7th Cir.) (text for sophisticated-means enhancement)
- United States v. Anobah, 734 F.3d 733 (7th Cir.) (upholding sophisticated-means enhancement for multi-state scheme with false documents)
- United States v. Wayland, 549 F.3d 526 (7th Cir.) (defendant's sloppy concealment does not preclude sophisticated-means enhancement)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (U.S.) (ex post facto clause applies when sentencing under Guidelines increases punishment)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S.) (plain-error review framework)