### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Nos. 14-2442 & 14-2597
U NI T E D S TAT E SOF A M E RI C A , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

K E N N E TH W. L E WI S

, Defen dant-Appellant.
Appe als fr om the U nited States Di stric t Co urt fo r the

Central Distri ct o f Il l i noi s. No. 1: 12 -cr- 10 08 2- JES -JE H — Jame s E. S had id , Chief Judg e.
A RGUE D A P RI L 11, 2016

— D E C I D E D A P RI L 20, 2016

Before B AU E R and W I L L I AM S , Circ uit Judges, and A D E L MAN , * District Judge. B AU E R , Cir cui t Judge. Defendan t-appellant, Kenneth Lewi s, appeals hi s convic tion and sentence for wi re fraud and money

Of the Uni ted States Distri ct Court for the Ea stern Distri ct o f Wi sconsi n, * sitti ng b y desi gna tio n.2 Nos. 14-2442 & 14-2597 laundering. The di stric t court sentenced hi m to 151 mon ths’ i mpri sonment for the four -count wi re fraud convic tion, and 1 2 0 months for the elev en-coun t money laundering convic tion. The di stric t court or dered Lewi s to serv e the sentences consec uti v ely

. Lewi s repr esented hi mself at tr i al. He appeals pro se as w ell, rais i ng sun dry challen ges to his co nvic tion and sentence. W e appoi nted an amicus curi ae to arg ue on hi s behalf. The am icu s focus ed on Lewi s’ challen ges to the money laundering convic

tion and the sev erity of hi s sentence; i t di d not po sit any arg ument regar ding Lewi s’ wi re fraud convicti on. After the parties fi led their respecti v e bri efs, but prior to or al arg ument, the government conceded that i t had not presented suffi ci ent evidenc e that Lewi s had i n fact laundered money; there w as no evidenc e t hat he had “engage[d] or atte mpt[ed] to engage i n a monetar y tr ansac tion using cri mi

nally deriv ed proper ty

.” 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a); see United States v. McClell an , 794 F .3d 743, 753 (7th Ci r
. 2015). Accordi ngly , the government agr eed that w e should v acate the money launder

i ng convic tion, and remand the case for rese nt encing only on the wi re fraud convic tion. Becaus e the recor d i s dev oid of
e videnc e that Lewi s laundered money , w e obli ge. See, e
. g . , United States v. Reed, 744 F .3d 519, 527 (7th Ci r
. 2014) (appellate court wi ll “ov ert urn a v erdic t for insu ffi ci ency of the evidenc e

... i f

... the recor d i s dev oid of evidenc e from whi ch a rat i onal tr i er of fact could find gui lt bey ond a reasonab l e d o ub t” (ci tations omi tte d)).Nos. 14-2442 & 14-2597 3 In response to the second ar gument of the amicus , w e add that Le wis ’ l itigati on tactic s cannot serv e as a basi s for hi s sentence. See United States v. P u r n e l l , 701 F .3d 1186, 1191–92 (7th Ci r
. 2012 ). Th e recor d demonstrate s that Lewi s w as an i rr i tant duri ng the tr i al process. But i t “w ould not be appropr i

ate or permi ssi

ble ” t o lengthen hi s sentence becau se of such
v exat i ousness, p a r t icularly giv en hi s pro se status. Id. at 1191;
see also, e.g. , Edwards v. Cross , 801 F .3d 869, 873 (7 th Ci r
. 2015) (notin g the leni ency that courts afford pro se li tigants). The d i stric t court’s frustration, how ev er understandable, cannot permeate sentenci ng. See Pu rnell , 701 F .3d at 1191. W e rej ect Lewi s’ remain ing a r guments as w ai v ed, under

dev eloped , fr i v olous, or other wi se wi thout merit. See United S tates v. Morris , 775 F .3d 882, 886–87 (7th Ci r
. 2015) (quot ing United States v. C u n n i n g h am , 429 F .3d 673, 678 (7th Ci r
. 2005)) (“Arguments clear ly wi thout merit can, and for the sake of judi ci al economy should, be pass ed ov er i n si lence.” (Brackets omi tte d)). Becaus e Lewis ha s not presented a sus tain able arg ument again st hi s wi re fraud convic tion, we affi rm i t wi thout furt her dis cus si on. Thus, w e AFF IRM Lewi s’ conv icti on for wi re fraud, V ACA TE hi s convic tion fo r money laundering, and REMAND the ca se for resentenci ng consi stent wi th thi s opin i on.