Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02600/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02600-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Neal K. Allen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme

Court (Ret.), sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(a).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Argued May 19, 2010

Decided June 29, 2010

Before

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice*

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐2600

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

NEAL K. ALLEN,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District

of Wisconsin.

No. 04‐CR‐00023

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge.

O R D E R

Neal Allen pled guilty to one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and

was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $363,038 at his initial sentencing hearing.  This

Court vacated the restitution order and remanded for recalculation because the District Court

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-2600 Document: 31 Filed: 06/29/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐2600 Page 2

failed to calculate the actual loss suffered by Allen’s victims.  United States v. Allen, 529 F.3d 390,

397 (7th Cir. 2008).  On remand, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing and recalculated

the amount ofrestitution owed by Allen.  The case now comes to this Court a second time, with

Allen again challenging the District Court’s restitution calculation.  

This Court has previously recounted the details of Allen’s fraudulent scheme, id. at

391–93, so we provide only a brief account here.  Allen falsely advertised himself as an expert

in mold testing and mold remediation.  He used falsified credentials claiming various degrees

and prior positions that he never actually attained.  Based on his advertisements, an attorney

for the Lac du Flambeau (“LdF”) Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians hired Allen to

provide mold testing services.  The tribe wanted the testing done to evaluate a potential legal

claim against the United States and to assess a potential claim for federal funding.  Based on

Allen’s advice, LdF contracted with him to provide air sampling and analysis of possible mold

in approximately 400 LdF homes.  Allen was also to provide remediation training and expert

testimony for LdF.  For his services, LdF paid Allen a total of $286,342.  In the District Court’s

previous restitution calculation, it ordered Allen to pay that amount to LdF plus several

thousand dollars that LdF paid to house Allen and his employees, for a total of slightly more

than $290,000.  The District Court also ordered Allen to pay an additional $71,345 in restitution

to Aerotech Laboratories, which he owed for lab testing.

This Court vacatedandremandedthe restitution order because theDistrict Courtdidnot

calculate the actual loss suffered by LdF.  Id. at 397.  That is to say, the District Court was

required to, but did not, “take into account (and deduct) pecuniary value the victim(s) gained

by way of the defendant’s conduct” in its restitution calculation.  Id.  This Court did not express

any opinion as to whether Allen’s victims gained any pecuniary value from his services, but

simply instructed the District Court to undertake that inquiry.

On remand, the parties agreed that Allen owed Aerotech $71,345, but disputed how

much actual loss LdF suffered.  The District Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine that

amount.  The Government argued that the initial restitution order should be discounted by

approximately $55,000.  The bulk of this deduction was based on the value of visual inspections

that Allen performed of LdF homes and the remediation training he provided.    In the

Government’s estimation, after this discount, Allen owed LdF approximately $238,000 in

restitution.  Allen argued that he owed less than that, believing that he should also get credit for

air testing services he performed.  The Government presented the live testimony of one expert,

Daniel Feldt, and reports from three others, all concluding that the air testing was unnecessary

and valueless to LdF.  Feldt opined that visual inspections for mold are a sufficient detecting

mechanism and that air testing is only advisable to measure the effects of remediation efforts

or when a physician instructs that it is needed.  Allen presented his own expert, who concluded

Case: 09-2600 Document: 31 Filed: 06/29/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐2600 Page 3

that the air testing had some value, although he did not specify how much.  The District Court

agreed with the Government’s experts that the air testing was of no value to LdF, and

determined that LdF was owed $238,362 in restitution.  

Allen argues on appeal that the District Court abused its discretion because it made its

restitution calculation based on a clearly erroneous finding that the air testing was worthless.

See id. (“We will review for an abuse of discretion whatever determination the district court

makes about the actual loss suffered by the LdF”); United States v. Adcock, 534 F.3d 635, 643 (7th

Cir. 2008)(reviewing factual determinations in support ofrestitution calculation for clear error).

Allen’s argument is little more than an assertion that his own expert was more credible than the

four Government experts.  We will not revisit the District Court’s determination that, under

these circumstances, the air testing was unnecessary and worthless to LdF because there is

sufficient support in the record and the determination was not clearly erroneous.  While Allen

suggests that LdF would not have requested the airtesting unless it was valuable,this overlooks

the District Court’s finding that the request itself was based on Allen’s flawed and misleading

advice.  We reject Allen’s argument that the District Court abused its discretion in making its

restitution calculation.

There is one remaining issue, raised by the Government.  The District Court ruled, both

from the bench and in a subsequent opinion, that Allen owed restitution to LdF in the amount

of $238,362 in addition to the $71,345 he owed Aerotech.  But the Court’s judgment did not

reflect this ruling.  The judgment provided that Allen owed a total of $238,362, consisting of

$167,017 owed to LdF and the $71,345 owed to Aerotech.  This was clearly a clerical error,

mistakenly subtracting Aerotech’s award from LdF’s award, as Allen’s counsel admitted at oral

argument.  We therefore remand the case to the District Court to correct the error.  See United

States v. Alburay, 415 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2005) (ordering district court to amend its written

judgment in light of a calculation error).  The District Court’s judgment should reflect that Allen

owes LdF $238,362, and owes Aerotech $71,345, for a total of $309,707.  

We AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND the case to the District Court for

correction of its clerical error.

Case: 09-2600 Document: 31 Filed: 06/29/2010 Pages: 3