United States v. Wilson Titus
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8757
7th Cir.2016Background
- Titus pled guilty to one count of bank fraud arising from a multi-defendant mortgage-fraud scheme that involved ~52 fraudulent loans and alleged lender losses > $8 million.
- In his plea declaration Titus admitted involvement in two specific mortgage closings (South Richmond St. and West End Ave.) and claimed his conduct related to only three properties; government asserted involvement in 18 transactions attributable to Titus.
- The PSR adopted the government’s view (18 transactions) and calculated a loss of at least $3,334,627, yielding an adjusted offense level that produced a Guidelines range of 51–63 months; the government sought a further 2-level sophisticated-means enhancement (total offense level 26 → 63–78 months).
- District court orally stated it held Titus responsible for “no less than eight” transactions, rejected Titus’s limited-responsibility argument, accepted the sophisticated-means enhancement, and imposed 36 months’ imprisonment (below the Guidelines) citing age and recidivism risk; it also ordered $3,760,859 restitution (adopted from government memo and misattributed to the PSR).
- On appeal Titus argued procedural error: the district court failed to make clear, explicit factual findings about the number of transactions attributed to him, the loss amount, restitution, and the sentencing enhancements, preventing meaningful appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Titus's Argument | Government/District Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court made adequate factual findings supporting the number of transactions attributed to Titus | Court failed to specify how many fraudulent transactions it held Titus responsible for (could be 8–18), so findings were inadequate | Government implied the court found Titus responsible for all 18 (supporting Guidelines and restitution) | Vacated sentence and remanded: court’s findings were not sufficiently explicit to permit review |
| Whether loss amount and resulting Guidelines enhancement were supported | Titus disputed high loss (argued ≈ $987,750 for three properties) and challenged 18-level increase | PSR and government asserted >$3.3M (or $3.76M restitution) supporting 18-level increase | Remanded because district court did not make specific factual findings tying Titus to the loss amount used for enhancement |
| Whether restitution award had adequate factual support | Titus argued restitution figure was adopted without evidentiary basis or explanation | District court adopted government’s restitution number (but misattributed it to PSR) | Restitution order vacated/remanded for lack of factual support and explanation |
| Whether sophisticated-means enhancement was justified | Titus contested the enhancement | District court addressed and rejected Titus’s objection, concluding facts supported a 2-level increase | Court upheld district court’s resolution of this objection, but overall sentence remanded for inadequate findings elsewhere |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bokhari, 430 F.3d 861 (7th Cir.) (district court must make explicit factual findings to support Guidelines calculations)
- United States v. Boatman, 786 F.3d 590 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for procedural sentencing error)
- United States v. Galbraith, 200 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir.) (court may adopt PSR findings when enhancements are uncontested but must state adoption or make findings)
- United States v. Hosking, 567 F.3d 329 (7th Cir.) (remand required when restitution lacks adequate explanation)
- United States v. Austin, 806 F.3d 425 (7th Cir.) (relevant-conduct rules for jointly undertaken criminal activity)