## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3281 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. G REG O RYW OLFE , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:10- cr-00207- RL -PRC -2

—RudyL ozano,Ju dge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 19, 2012

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 5, 2012

Befo re B AUER, K ANN E , a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Gre gory W ol fe was co nvi cted o n on e c o un to fb a nkthe fta nd o ne c o un to fint e r s t a t e t r a nspo r ta ti o n o fs to l eng o o ds unde r 1 8 U. S
. C. § § 21 13(b) a nd 2314 f orh is ro le i n a c opper theft s chem e. The di str i ct cour t s entence d W ol fe t o ei ghty- ei ght m onths’ i m pri sonm ent o n each count, to be ser ved co n curr entl y, f ol l owed byco ncurr ent three

- yea r te rm s o fsuperv i sed r el ea se . The di st r i ctjud g e al so o r der ed r es ti tu ti o n in the2 N o. 11

- 3281

am ount o f$3 , 028, 011. 29. W ol fe ap peal s, co ntending that he w as depr i ve d o fa f ai r t r i alb ec au se o fs ta te m en ts the pros ecuto r m ade duri ng cl osi n g argum ent. W ol fe a l so chal l enges the sente nce he re cei ved and the re sti tuti on or der i m posed. Find in g that W ol fe’ s co ntenti ons l ack me r i t, w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND W olfe b e g an w or kin g a t K at oe n N at ie (“ K T N ”) in M ay 20 08 . K T N is an int er n at ion al c om p an y in vo lve d in th e p a c k a g i n ga n d s t o r i n go fp l a s t i c s a n d v a r i o u s c o mm od iti es, includ ing alum inu m and cop p er. I t has U
. S. w ar eh ou se s in G ar y, In d ian a; T ex as ; N ew Jers ey ; L ou isiana; and Cal i f orn ia. W ol fe work ed at the Gar y wareho us e wher e hi s st epf athe r, Gr eg o r y Har r i s, w as the oper ati ons m anage r. W ol fe was hi re d i n 200 8 a s a forkl ift op erator bu t w as later given m ore of a su p ervi sor y r ol e. I n l at e 20 08 to ea r l y 20 09 , KTN be g an stori ng copper f orH enryBath, LLC , at t h e Gar y wareho use. H en ry B at h ’s c o p p er arr ive d atth e w ar eh ou se in bund l es ofapproxim ate l y s i xteen t o tw enty- si x copper sheet s. Each co pp ershee t was approxi m atel y three feet l ong by thre e feetwide and w ei ghed r oughl y 3 30 pound s, and the t op sheet o fev er y b und l e had a sti cker i denti fyi ng wh i ch l ot i t was fro m . The co pp er is tr aded on the Lond on M eta l Ex change ( “LM E”) by th e w ar ra nt; one w ar ra nt i s e qual to ten b u n d les. The weight o fea ch bun dl e i s an i m po r ta ntc o m po ne nto fthe t r ading proce ss, so LM E regu lati ons re quir e e ach bundle to be s ecure d by t w o bands at al l ti m es.N o. 11

- 3281 3 S ho r tly a fte r KTN be g an st o r i ng co pper f o r H en r y Ba th, H ar ris be c am e t h e fa c ilitie s m an ag er , w h ich p u t h im i n c ha r g e o fthe e nt i r e Gar ywar eh o us e, a nd W o l fe becam e the poi nt o fco ntact f or the H enryBath ac count. I n 2 0 0 9 , W o l f e ha d a n i n- depth co nver sat i on w ith K en ne th En gland , m an ager of H en ry Ba th ’s U. S
. o per at i o ns , abo utthe pr o to colf o r b an di ngthe copper bund l es. Engl and i nfo rm ed W ol fe that i t was K TN ’ s r e s po ns ib i l i t y t o mak e s ur e tha t a ny b a nd s t hat had becom e s eve re d d uri ng the co pp er ’ s t ra nsport ati on t o th e G a r y wa r e h o u s e we r e i mme d i a t e l y r epa i r e d

. He em p h as ize d to W olfe th e im p or ta n c e o fea c h bu n d le b e i n gs e c u r e d b y t wo b a n d s a ta l l t i me s , a s p e r L ME r egul ations , i n o r dert o pr ev en t co pperfr o m b eing sto l en fro m a bund l e. Engl and al so to l d W ol fe that K TN was not to m ove any copper i n th e G ar y wareho use f ro m the l oca ti on wh er e i t was o ri gi n ally pl aced

— k n o wn as th e “p lace ofr est ”

— unl es s i t was b eings hi pped o ut orm ove d to save space withi n the w ar ehouse

. W o l fe was a l so t o l d tha t, b efore a ny c o ppers hi pm en t co ul d o cc ur, Henr y Ba thwas r equi r ed to i nf o r m KTN about the par ti cul ari tem s th at w oul d be r em ove d fr om the wareho use a nd l oaded onto a truck. A nd o nce a tru ck w as load ed bu t before i t l e ft the w areh ou se, H en ry Ba th wa s t o c r e a t e a r e c e i pt

— the “bi l l of lad i ng”

— that w oul d be g i ven to the tr uck dri ver . W ol fe was al so on noti ce that Henry Bath w oul d onl y g ener ate a bil l o f l adingduri ng i ts nor m albusi ness hours of 8 : 00 a. m . to 4:30 p . m . E ST
. T he se cop p er-ship p ing p roced ur e s w ere reiterated to W olfe d uring a sem inar at H en ry Ba th ’s Balt i m or e, M ar yl and, headqu ar ter s in J anuary20 10.4 N o. 11

- 3281

O lds was the fir stK TN em ployee to ass is t W olfe w ith thi s re- 1 b u nd ling p ro cess. H arr is asked O ld s ifhe w ou ld b e w i l l ing to w ork ov e r t i m e , t o whi c h Ol ds s a i d y e s , a nd the n i ns t r uc ted hi m to sp eak t o W ol fe. Olds as s i s t ed W ol fe at3: 00 a. m . onthe ne xtS atur day m or ni ng for r oughl y t wel ve hour s an d the n e x tS u n d a y m o r n i n g b e g i n n i n g a r o u n d 3 : 0 0 a . m. t o 6 : 0 0 a . m. The tw o m en w ere able t o cre ate rough ly five new b und le s ofc op pe r tha twe e ke nd

. The fi r s t c o pp e r s hi pme nt s o ut o f the Ga r y warehouse occurre d i n Decem ber20 09. H ar ri s instr ucted W o l fe, who i n tur n c al l ed an d di r ec te d Cr ai gOl ds an d Jose M o r a les ( low er-l evel em p loyees at K T N w ho p erf or m ed tas ks at W ol fe’ s dir ecti on) , to ar ri ve at th e w ar ehou se at 3:00 a. m . W he n W olfe, O ld s , a nd M orales w ere a tth e w a r e h o u s e , t wo t r u c k s a r r i v e d, an d th e th r e e e mplo yee s l oa d ed cer tai n copper bund l es onto the tr ucks. The tr ucks then l eft the warehou se. W ol fe t est i fi ed at tr i althathe par ti ci pated i n two co pp ershi pm ents l i ke thi s duri ng Decem ber20 09. Du ring the sum m ero f20 10, W ol fe a ske d a t le astfi ve K TN em plo yee s

— r egul are m pl o y ee s ( Ol ds, M o ra l es , a nd N o el S a n t o s ) a n d t e mpo r a r y h e l p (J u l i o V i r t e s a nd Rober t M ar ti nez)

— w hetherthey w oul d be wil l i ng to as sis t w ith co p p er re-b u n d lin g. W olfe to ld th e in d i- 1 vi dual s th atthe c o pperb undl es c o nt aine d too many sh ee ts, and theysho uld t ake the top pi ece off, r em ove th e ne xts he eto r s hee ts fr o m the s ta ck, a nd the n putthe top pi ece backo n the sta ck. Thi s r esul ted i n the cre ati on ofenti re l y new copper bund l es. T he ini ti alp l an w as to re -N o. 11

- 3281 5

The original copper bu nd le s w ere b and ed w ith a “m anufac

2 t ur i ng ba nd. ” Th es e bands wer e m ar ke d with the i ni t i al s of the c ompa ny f a c t or y whe r e th e bu nd l e s we r e m a de

. Th e ba nd s on the newly- f orm ed b und le s of ten did not have any m anufac

turer m arks. W olfe explaine d this differenc e by st ati ng that the f or kli f t u s e d t o m ov e bu nd l e s o ft e n c a us e d the ba nd s to b rea k , so th ey ha d to re-b an d the b u nd les w ith n ew b an d s. band th e o ri gi nal bundles , but w hen thatpro ved t o o di ffi c ul t, the KT N e mpl o y e e s s i mpl y l e ftthe b undl es w i th br oke n ba n d s. The new bundles were m ove d to the b ack ofthe w ar ehouse , awa y fro m the or i gi nal copper bund l es. 2 The KTN e m pl o y ee s r efer r ed to the c o pperre-bun dl i ng as “G- M o ne y ’ s P r oj e c t, ” “ G- M o ne y ” b e i ngWo l fe ’ s n i c knam e. Rega rdl ess o fwh i ch em plo yee s were ass i sting at the t i m e, so m e e m plo yee s r em ove d copper s heets fro m th e bun dl es whi l e o th er s wer e r es po ns ibl e f o r moving th e n ewl y - f o r m ed bun dl es t o a di ffer en t l o ca ti o n. Wo l fe ma i n t a i n e d a p i e c e o fp a p e r w i thfi l e n u mbers

—j okingl y r efer re d to as W ol fe’ s “ l i ttl e bl ack boo k”

— that he used to kee p tr ack of w hi ch co p p er bund l es had sheets r em ove d fr om them

. The “proj ect” w as neverco m ple ted duri ng nor m alKT N busi ness hours; em plo yee s e i therar ri ved ea rl y o r sta yed l ate on weekdays orco m ple ted the w or k o n w eek

en d s. W o l fe to l d e m pl o y ee s who as k ed hi m abo utthe copper re -bund l i ng tha t the y w er e “ fi xi ng a probl em f orthe custo m erto ke ep the custo m erhappy” or“no t to as k q u es tio n s.”6 N o. 11

- 3281 M ich ae l C oh en , w h o p u rc h as ed th e c op p er d ir ec tly f ro m Har r i s o n b e ha l fo fh i s b us i ne s s , T e a m Al l i ance Pl as ti cs , s ent t r uck s to the Ga r y war eh o us e to pi ckup th e cop p er. Th e truc ks typ icall y arri ved at th e G ary w ar ehouse betw een 3:00 a . m . and 4: 00 a. m . to r ecei ve the c opper l oads. Ero n Ti tsworth, a tr uck driv erf or T eam A ll iance Pla s t ic s , testifi ed that he h ad a diff i cu l t t i me g e t t i n g th r o u g h KT N’ s s e c u r i t y g a t e s o n o ne occa si on, but aftercal l i ng H arri s, M or al es ar ri ved at th e g at e in les s t h a n t w o m in u te s, an d h e n ev er ag ain had tro ubl e w ith s ecu ri ty. Once the tr ucks w er e past secu rity, Old s and M orales l oad ed the tru cks in con form ance with the i nstr ucti ons th ey had rec ei ved fro m W o l fe r e g a r d i n g wh i c h c o p p e r b u n d l e s t o l o a d

. The truckdr i ve r s ne ve r r ec ei ve d a ny pa per wor kfr o m KTN i n connect i on with the c op per pickup s; theycr eat ed thei r own bi l l s o fl adingi n case they w er e stopp ed by law en for c em en t p er so n n el. A fterthe copper bund l es w er e l oaded onto the tr ucks, the t ruck dri ver s t ra nsport ed them fro m the Gary w ar ehouse to the Tea m A l l i ance Pl ast ics w ar ehouse i n Springfi el d, M i chi gan. U pon re cei pt o f t h e co pp ershi pm ents, Cohen w oul d rem ove the bands and re turn them to H ar r i s . Th e c o pp e r wa s the n r e pa c k a g e d a nd s o l d to St i ana, a com pany l oca ted i n Toro nto, Canada. Cohen r ec ei ve d a ppr o xi m at ely $ 50 0, 00 0 f r o m Sti an a f o r the copper; he pai d Harr i s approxi m ate l y $360 , 000. Cohen tes ti fi ed that he purchase d ro ughl y e l eve n to f ou rt een truck s’ wor th o f co pper be twe en th e fi r st shi pm en t o fc o pperi n De ce m be r 2 00 9 an d the l as t shipment i n Se ptem ber20 10.N o. 11

- 3281 7

T his w as a r e lativ ely sm all p erce nta g e of the 1 2,000 m etric 3 tons ofcopper thatw ere st ored in the G ary w arehouse. I n l ate A ugust 2 010, H enryBa th c onducted a r andom au d it ofthe cop p er at the G ary w areh ou se. T he a ud itors disc ove re d th at t h e wei ght o fcer tai n w ar ra nts was to o l i g ht

. Har r i s was no ti fi ed o fthe d i sc r epa nc i es a nd i nf or m ed that the a ud i tor s would r eturn i n a few day s to r ewe i g h a l l o fthe c o ppers to r ed inthe Gary w ar ehouse

. Whe n th e He n r y B a th e mpl o y e e s r e t u r n e d t o t he Gary w ar ehouse i n Se ptem ber 2010 , they d isco ver ed th atmany o fthe c o pperb undl es ha d b rok enb an ds an d w er e m i ssi ng atl eas t o ne she et ofco pp er . They al so noti ced thatse ven co m ple te w ar ra nts o fco pp er that had been a t the warehouse duri ng the A ugust 2 010 audit w er e no w m i ssi ng. A pp ro xi m ate l y $2, 900, 000 w or th ofco pp er

— 39 0 m et r i c to ns

— wa s mi s s i ng . A r e vi ew o f 3 He n r y B a th ’ s r e c o r d s r e v e a l e d th a t n o c o p p e r l eft th e Gar y war eh o us e l eg i ti m at ely be twe en Augus t 20 09 and Se ptem ber20 10. Tw o days a fter Henry Bath l ear ned of the m i ssi ng co pp er, H ar ri s f ai l ed to sho w up f orwork; i ns te ad, he se nt F r an k Vi ng erho et s, th e pre si den t of K T N , a te x t m es sa ge sa yin g h e b elie ve d h e w ou ld b e fi r e d. W ol fe w as t ol d that dayto l eave the Gary w ar ehouse pr e mi s e s , a nd Ha r r i s a nd Wo l fe we r e fi r e d. On N ove m ber18 , 20 10, a G ra n d Juryr etur ned a twoco unti ndi ct m en t ag ains t W o l fe an d Har r i s f o r v i o l at i ng 18 U
. S. C. §§ 2 11 3(b) a nd 23 14

—bank theft a nd i nter sta te8 N o. 11

- 3281

A t s om e point in t im e, J PM organ C hase pu rchas ed H enry 4 Bath a nd, the re f or e, was the owner ofthe c oppe r s t ol enduri ng the schem e. As di s c us s ed a tor al ar gum en t, thi s i s the r ea s on for the “b an k theft” co u nt. A Jäg er b o m b i s a c o ck ta il m a d e b y d ro p p in g a sh o t (1 .5 5 ounc es ) of the al c oho l i c be ver age J äge rm ei s t eri nt o a pi nt gl as s c ont ai nin g ha l fa c an ofthe c affei nat ed e ne rg y dr i nk R ed B u ll. tr anspor tat i on o fst ol en g oo d s. A f our- day j ury tr i al 4 w as l ate r hel d fo r W ol fe. Du ring the tr i al, W ol fe cl aim ed he ha d no kno w l edge o fth e co pperthe ft sc he m e; he was s i m pl y f o l l o wi ng H ar r i s’ o r der s an d di r ec ti o ns . To r eb ut th i s defen se , the Go v e r n me n to ffe r e d th e t e s t i mo n y o fAs hb y G ur g o n, W olfe ’s o n -an d -off g irlfrie n d . G u rg on d e s c rib ed H ar ris and W ol fe as li vi ng ext ra vaga ntl y duri ng the sum m er of20 10. Gurgon, W ol fe, H ar ri s, and H ar ri s’ m i str ess ( Shante l Cott ew ) fre quented bar s a nd cl ubs i n Chicag o and spent the ni ght a t the Peni nsul a H ot el. They fl ew fi r s tc l a s s o n t r i ps t o P ue r t o R i c o a nd La s V e g a s , a nd r o de i n l i m ousi nes a nd party b uses. H arri s, wh ose sa l ar y was approxi m ate l y $ 70, 000, pai d fo r eve ry thi ng. Exam ples o f hi s ex pen se s dur i ngthe s um m ero f2010 in cl ude the f ol l owing: $8 00 i n one ni ght forJ äge r bom b sho ts; $1 0, 000 5 a mo nth f o r h i s mi s t r e s s ’ r e nti n Og de n Du ne s , I nd i a na; $2, 000 f orGurgo n to pl ay a di ce g am e; $2 , 000 f or Gu r g o n ’ s mor tg ag e ; $ 1 4 , 8 0 0 ( i n $ 1 0 0 b i l l s ) f o r a d o wn paym ent o n a 2 010 Ch evr ol et Tahoe; $1 8, 000 f ora 2007 Ford M us tan g; an d “tho us an d s of d oll ars” for W olfe’s si ste r Deanna’s wed ding.N o. 11

- 3281 9

G u rg on t es t i fi ed thatW ol fe, Harr i s , an d H ar ri s ’ m i s t ress 6 referre d to w h atever sc hem e or il le git im ate w ork they were involved in at the G ary w arehouse as “the bu si ness . ” H arr is pa id W olfe ap p ro xim ately $31 0 to $35 0 p er w e ek in 7 ad d ition to W o lfe’ s K T N p ay ch eck

. W olfe claim ed H arr is of fered to pay him thi s am ount in or d er t o e nti ce him to w ork at the G ary w arehouse, despit e the l ow hourly w age, after grad uating from high s chool i n 2008. G u rg on als o d es c rib ed w h at sh e k n ew ab ou t “ th e b u siness. ” She sa i d W ol fe t ol d her that H ar ri s was the l eader

6 an d he was a pa rtne r, th o ug h h e was l at erde m o te d a nd ca l l ed a “s o l di er ” f o r mess i ngup. W he n di sc us singthe tim e pe riod after the fir st au d it, Gu rgon sa id that W olfe bega n w or king “r eal l y har d” du ring the m i dn i ght ho urs. She then de scribed how , after a nigh t out d rinking, W olfe to l d he r th at H en r y Bath woul d fi nd o ut what was mis sing and that he co uld g et i n a l ot oftro ubl e. Gurgo n tes ti fi ed th atW o l fe des cr ibe d th e pl anf o r Har r i s to t ak e al l the bl am e a nd to “go bi g orgo hom e” bef or e the se cond audit

. A dd i ti onal l y, Gurgo n sai d that, afterWo l fe was suspended f r o m hi s j o b wi thKTN , he s po k e to he r abo uthi s m ee ting w i th a l aw yer and hav i ng nothi ng to w or ry about because h e w a s n o t in c h ar ge of th e o p er at ion . For W olfe ’s ro le in the b usi ness, Gurgo n sai d that Harr i s a gr eed to m atch w hatev erpaym ent W ol fe r ecei ved fro m KT N. Gu r g on a l so 7 sai d that W ol fe, H ar ri s, and N i ck Ch or ak

— anothe r K TN em plo yee a t the Gar y wareho use

— w er e t h e o n ly p e o p l e wh o r e c e i v e d d i r e c tc o mpe n s a t i o n fr o m t he copper theft.10 N o. 11

- 3281

K T N ma i n t a i n e d a t i me k e e p i n g s y s t e m t o r e c o r d i t s e m- 8 ployee’ s arri val and d epartu re t im es at the G ary w arehouse. Som e em ployees, incl ud ing W olfe, w ere requir ed to p unch in; H arr is w as no t. W ol fe al s o i ns t ru c t ed Ol ds an d M or al es t o l oad dun nag e

— i.e ., 9 w aste-like ca rd b oa rd , b ro k en b an d s, or o ld p allets

— ont o the tr uck s and around the copper bu nd le s to keep the bun dles f ro m m ovi ng dur i ng t ra ns por t
. O ld s an d M or al es though t this w as ou t of the or d ina ry giv en the w eig ht o f the b u nd les. The Go vernm ent a l so pla yed a surve i l l ance v i deo f ro m the Ga r y wa r e ho us e t a k e n o n Aug us t 2 3 , 2 0 1 0, at approxi m ate l y 3 : 45 a. m . The video sho w ed two tr ucks bei ng l oaded and an i nd i vi du alwalk i ng al ong the e dge of th e lo adingdo ck

. F o urwi tn es se s f o r the Go ve r nm en t te st ified th at W olfe w as m or e t h an likely th e m an in the v i deo; o ne Governm ent witness sa id h e co uld not i den ti fy the man. W o l fe w as un abl e to t el l whethe r he w as the di sputed m an in the vi deo, st ati ng, “I

— Idon ’t know. Idon’ t know i fi t was m e. Ican’t m ake a

— Idon ’t know.” Thi s was a centr ali ssue because W olfe d i d not p u n c h in u n t i l 4:00 a.m . A d d itio n ally , th e v id eo d id 8 not show any cop p er i n the tr ucks; i t o nl y s how ed du nnage i n the back

. 9 Du ring cl osing ar gum ent, the Gover n m en t l aw yer ar g ue d tha t W o l fe was a kno wi ngpa r ti ci pan t o fthe schem e fro m the beginning and his te sti m ony w as not to be t rust ed. Th e p rosec utorsupporte d thi s co ntenti on b y hi ghl i ghti ng the f act that W ol fe would notev en i denti fy hi m sel fo n the vi deo.N o. 11

- 3281 11 The j ury convi cted W ol fe o n both counts. At W o l fe ’ s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng o n S e pt e mbe r 2 9 , 20 11, the di strictco urt accepte d the Pr ese ntence I nvest i gat i on Rep or t ( “PSR”) o verW ol fe’ s obj ecti on a nd se ntenced W ol fe to ei ghty- ei ght m onths’ i m pri sonm ent on each co unt, t o b e se r ve d c o nc ur r en tly, f o l l o wed b y c o nc ur r en t th re e-y ea r te rm s o f su p er vis ed rele as e. R es tit u tio n in the a mou nto f$ 3 , 0 2 8 , 0 1 1
. 2 9 wa s a l s o i mpo s e d.

I I . DI S C US S I ON W ol fe chal l enges stat em ents m ade bythe pros ecuto r d uring his closi ng argum en t, t h e d istri ct cou rt’s det ermi n a t i o n o fth e v i c t i m l o s s a mo u n ta t t r ib u t e d t o h i m, and the di stri ct c ourt ’ s r est i tuti on o rder

. W e a dd re ss ea chc ha l l en g e i n tur n.
A. C l o s i ngAr g ume nt W ol fe cl ai m s tw o cate gor i es ofi m properr em ar ks d u rin g th e G ov er n m en t’s c los in g arg u m en t d en i e d h im a fai r tri al: ( 1) cred ibi li ty-vou ch ing for th e G overn m en t’s w i tness , Gu rg on; and ( 2) m i sst ati ng tr i al testi m ony. The se st atem en ts wer e no t o bj ec te d t o a t tr i al, s o o ur review i s li m ited to p lai n error. A r evi ew of com m ents by a pro secuto r i nvol ves a t w opart in q uir y. Fi rs t, we consi der whether the c hal l enged rem ark w as im p rop er, and seco n d , w he th er the rem ark d ep riv ed th e d ef en d an t o f a fair tria l. U nited Sta tes v. La throp , 6 3 4 F
. 3 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 )
. We12 N o. 11

- 3281 consi der fi ve f acto rs to d eterm i ne wh etherthe re m ar ks prej ud i ced the defe nd ant: “( 1) the nature and ser i ousness ofthe m i scon d uct; ( 2) the extent to w hi ch the com m ents w er e invi ted bythe defe nse; ( 3) the extent to w hi ch any pr ej ud i ce was am el i or ate d by the co urt’ s in str ucti on to the j ury; ( 4) the defe nse’ s o pp or tuni ty to counter a nyp r ej ud i c e ; a nd ( 5 ) the we i g hto fthe e vi dence s up port i ng the co nvi cti on. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v. A d a ms , 62 8 F
. 3d 407, 41 8- 19 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. The pl ai n er ror re vi ew r e q u i r e s Wo l fe t o d e mo n s t r a t e th a tth e t r i a l ’ s o u t c o me w oul d have be en di ffer ent absent the pr ose c u to r’ s r em ar ks . W olfe fac es an u p h ill ba tt le in m ak in g t h is c h all en g e as i m pr o per s ta te m en ts dur i ngc l o singa r g um en t ra re ly c on st itu te rev er sib l e err or . U nited Sta tes v. N un ez , 532 F.3d 645 , 654 (7th C ir. 2008); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ande rs on , 303 F.3d 847, 854 (7th C ir. 2002).

1. Cred ibility V ou ch ing C om m en ts W e ha ve r ec o g ni ze d t wo ty pes o fi m per m i ss ibl e vo uch

i ng: “a pro secuto r m ay not express herpers on al b el i ef i n the tru thfulne ss ofa w i tness , and a pr ose cutorm ay not i m plythatf acts notbefor e the juryl end a witne ss c r e dib i l i ty. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Al vi ar, 57 3 F
. 3d 526, 54 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. A p ro se c utorm ay, however, co m m ent o n a witness’ cr edibi l i ty as l ong as “the com m ent r efl ects re aso nabl e infe rences f ro m the evi dence addu ced at tr i alr atherthan perso nal o pini on. ” N un ez , 53 2 F
. 3d at 654 ( quotati ons om i tte d). W ol fe i denti fi es thre e e xam ple s of i m p rop er vouc hin g, w hich w e now cons ider.N o. 11

- 3281 13 W ol fe’ s fi rs t cha l l enge i s t o the fol l owing re m ar k: I thin k[ M s. Gurgo n] w as

— a nd It hi nk you woul d ag ree w i t h me, h op e

f u l l yy o u ’ l l ag r e ew i t h me, one of the clearest, shar pest witnesses on tri al

. Obvi ousl y s he’ s a very bright p erson . ( em p ha sis add ed ). T he Go vern m en t ackn ow led ges th at vou ch ing occu rs w hen a pros ecuto r express es hi s o w n p ersonalbel i ef r e g a r d i n ga wi tn e s s ’ c r edibi l i t y . T h a ti s e x a c t l y wh a twe have here

. I n f act, it is tel l i ng tha t the Governm ent ne ver eve n m enti ons i n i ts bri efthe fir st part ofthe quote; i t o nl y m enti ons the “ one oft h e cl ear est, shar pest wit

nesse s o n tr i al ” por ti on. But w e s ti l l m u st consi der w hetherthe im properst ate m ent a ffecte d the f ai rnes s o fth e t r i a l o v e r a l l, a n d i fs o , w h e t he r th e o u t c o me w oul d have be en di ffer ent b ut f orthe re m ar k. W e be l i ev e th at, a t worst, the pr o se cut o r ’ s co m m en t that he hopes th e j ury w i l l ag re e with hi s a sse ssm ent o f G u rg on ’s t es tim on y w as “b or d er lin e” ina p p ro p ria te
. S ee U nite d State s v. M cM ath , 559 F.3d 657, 667 (7th C ir. 2009 ) ( concl ud i ng tha t the pro sec u to r’ s co m m ent that th e po l i ce o ffi ce r s wer e “ ‘ r ea l l y c r edibl e, ’ w hil e te ch

ni cal l y i m propervo uching, als o see m [ ed] f ai rl y innoc u ous in conte xt. ”)
. H er e, the pros ecuto r i m m edi ately fol low ed his com m en t w ith a referen ce to G urgo n’s tr i alte sti m ony: “On cr oss exam i nati on, wh en [ defe nse c ou n se l ] as ke d h er ab ou t t h e d ou b le life, sh e a c tu ally sa id , yo u kn ow , i t w as n ’t jus t a d ou b le life; it w as a tr ip le l i fe. I t was the l i fe wi thme, the l if e w ith M s. Ya w and then hi s l i fe a t the warehouse

. ” Gurgo n al so tes ti fi ed at l ength and i n detai l abo ut th e su m m ero f20 10 w i th14 N o. 11

- 3281 W ol fe a nd H ar ri s, i n ad d ition to wh at W ol fe t ol d her a b o ut the b us i ne s s . I n s ho r t, the pr o s e c ut o r s ho uld not ha ve i nj ec te d hi s o wn p erson alb el i ef s i nt o the t r i al, b ut th e e vid en c e s u p p or te d h is c h ar ac te riz at ion an d th is mi s s t e p i n the c o nt e xt o f the e nt i r e c a s e do e s no t s up p or t a find in g t h at W olfe w as d en ied a fair t ria l. A fu lldi scussi on o fthe re l evantf acto rs f orprej ud i ce i s unneces sar y. W o l fe’ s ne xtc ha l l en g e i s to the fo l l o wi ngs ta te m en t i n w hi ch the pros ecuto r chara cter i zed Gu rg on as an i nno ce nt by st an der o f th e sc he m e whos e testi m o ny shoul d be g i ven m or e wei ght: And unl i k e M r . M o r al es , a nd unl i k e Cr ai gOl ds, a nd unli ke N oelS antos , M s. Gurgo n has no r eas on t o sh ad e t h e t ru th in t h is c as e o r to sh ad e h er te st im o ny . S he do es n’ t ha ve t o wor r y abo utg et ting ch ar g ed wi tha ny th i ng . S he was wo r k i ng

— sh e w asn’ t work i ng atKT N
. S he wasn’ti nvol ved i n thi s. W ol fe co ntends thes e s tat em ents w er e i m properbecause the Gove rnm ent was im p lying that i t had i nd ep en d en tly inv estigated Gu rgon’s role in th e cop p er theft and cl ear ed hero fany w ro ng doi ng, nei thero fwh i ch w as a f act i n evi dence, and we agr ee. The evi de n c e p re sente d at t ri aldoes nots u pp or t a n i nfe re nce that Gurgo n w as entir el y guil t- f re e be cause she di d not workat KTN

— e. g. , te sti m ony d em onst ra ted thatshe benefi tte d f ro m the cri m e’ s fin an ci alfrui ts

—but ag ai n, thi s doe s not end the inquir y. Al l o fth e r e l e v a n tf a c t o r s e x c e p tf a c to r numb e r t wo ti p the s cal e in f avo r of a fi nd i ng tha t W ol fe was not pr ej udi ce d b y the r emar k

. Cr edibi l i tywas a f o cus o ftheN o. 11

- 3281 15 tr i al, b utwhethe r Gur g o n was c r i m i na l l y i nv o l ve d i n the schem e d id n ot m ake herte sti m ony any m or e o r l ess bel i evab l e be cau se she was notte sti fyi ng pursuant to an y a g r ee m en t with the Go ve r nm en t. S he ha d no ex tr a in c en tiv e t o t es tify a c er ta in w ay . See U nited S ta tes v. Cl arke, 227 F
. 3d 874, 8 85 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( des cr ibing how bo th si des m ay ar gue the c om peti ng i nfe re nces re sul ti ng fro m a w i tness te sti fyi ng pursuant to a pl ea agr eem ent)
. The pro secuto r’ s co m m ents w er e nei ther ser i ous no r substa nti alm i sta kes

. M or eov er, W ol fe had an opportunity t o re spon d to th e r emar kdur i nghis c l o singa r g um en t ( th e Gov ernm en t di d no t r efer en ce i t dur i ngi ts rebu ttal ) , a nd the dist ri ct c ourti nstr uc te d the j ury bef or e a nd after closing argu m en ts th at th e a ttorn eys’ statem en ts w ere not to be t ake n as e vidence. ( There w as no i nstr ucti on im m edi ate l y f ol l owing the re m ar k because W ol fe d id n otco n te m p or an eo u sly ob j ec t a t t ria l.) Lastly, the evi dence supporting the co nvi cti on was m or e than suffi ci ent. Gurgo n’s te st im ony w as no doubt i m p or tant, but the t est i m ony ofthe othe r w i tness es

— nam el y, Ol ds and M or al es

— fi rm ly e s t ablishes W olfe’s knowle dge o fand partic ip ati on i n the schem e. They bo thde sc r ibe d t ak ing o r der s f r o m W o l fe an d b eing to ld n otto qu es tio n h im ab ou t t h e c op p er . M or ale s a d d iti onal l y desc ribed W olfe a s ind i cating a gui l ty consci ence on c e K T N be ga n to inv e st iga te th e m iss in g c op p er , tes tifyi ng that W olfe said, “W e’re screw ed , ” an d , “[W ]e ne ed to get our stories toget h e r and m ake su re w e are d oin g t h e s am e t h in g, th at w e w er e d oin g ou r j ob s.”16 N o. 11

- 3281 In sh o r t, w e a r e n o tp e r s u a d e d th a tW o lf e w a s p r ejud iced b y the r emar k, e ve n whe n c o ns i der ed wi ththe fi rs t cha l l enged s tat em ent. W o l fe ’ s thi r d c ha l l e ng e i s to t he Go v e r nme nt ’ s de s c r i pti on o fGurgo n’s m em or y: A nd y o u h eard [ G urgo n] say sh e’s got no ha rd fe e l i ng s a g a i ns tthe de fe nd a nt d e s pi t e wh a th a ppen ed i n the i r r el at i o ns hi p. Herk i ds st i l l a skabo ut h im . Sh e o b vio u sly h as a m em or y for d et ail. These r em ar ks l ack any ind i ci a o fi m perm i ssibi l i ty, as the pr os ec utorm ade them sho rt l y a fterhi s descr i pti on of Gu rgon’s test im ony exp lai nin g W o lfe’s tri p le l ife ( disc ussed abo ve)
. That “ tr i ple l i fe” com m ent a l one w as s uffi c i e ntt o s up po r tthe i nfe r e nc e tha tGu r g o n ha d a m em or y f o r d et ail. See N un ez , 532 F.3d at 654

. W olfe never thele ss d i re cts our att enti on t o U ni t e d S t at e s v. Francis , 1 70 F
. 3d 546 ( 6th Ci r . 1 99 9) , t o a vo i d thi s co nc l usio n . Id. at 552 ( concl ud i ng that the pr ose cutor ’ s co m m ents ab ou t t h e d efe n d an t’s cr ed ibilit y w er e im p er m iss ible bec au se th e p rosecu tor d id not p rovide eviden tiary e xa mpl e s s up po r t i ng the i nfe r e nc e )
. He c o nt e nd s th e se nt en ce abo utGur g o n’ s k i ds do es no t su ppo r t th e “m or e g ener al, pow er ful sta tem ent” that Gu rg on has a m emor y f o r de ta i l

. W e do n o t r ea d the r ul e r eg ar di ngthe use o ftr i alev i dence to support a cl osing ar gum ent c hara ct e r i z a t i o n a s re qu i r i nga n a t t o r ne y t o ma k e “ b o o k e nd ” co m m en ts
. An i nfer ence made dur i ngc l o singa r g um en t n ee d n otalw ay s b e in tr od u c e d , n or im m ed iat ely f o l l o w ed , by a d ire c t re fer en c e t o t h e t ria l rec or d

. See Soltys v. C ostello , 52 0 F
. 3d 737, 74 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “A t-N o. 11

- 3281 17 torneys have m or e l eeway i n cl osing ar gum en ts to su g g es t i nfer en ce s ba se d o n the e vi den ce , hi g hl i g ht wea k ne ss es i n the o pp o ne nt ’ s ca se , a nd e m pha si ze the stren gth s in their ow n ca se.”). Refer en c es to evi dence s up po r t i n ga n i n fe r e n c e a r e s u ffi c i e n ti fth e y a r e ma de conte m pora neousl y; thato ccurr ed her e.

2. Trial T estim on y Com m en ts M i ss ta te m en t o fe vi den ce may be i m pr o perprose cuto ria l co n d u c t. See U ni t ed S ta tes v. B a dg er, 98 3 F
. 2d 1443 , 1450

- 51 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. W hen dis cus sing the v i deo at tr i alan d w h y W olfe would notadm i t he i s in the vi deo, the prose cuti on e xplai ned that “ all the othe r w i tness es” id en tifie d th e m an on th e v id eo as W olfe . W olfe co rr e c tly poi nt s o utthi s wa s a mi s s t a t e men to fthe e v i de nc e: Tit sw or th, a tr uck dri verwh o tr an sp or ted the st ol en copper on a few o ccasi ons, te stified thathe c oul d not po si t i v e l y i d e n t i fy th e ma n a ti s s u e i n th e v i d e o . The Gover nm ent a rgues in re sponse that i t di d not m i sst ate th e ev i den ce b ec au se , “ [ n] o twi th sta ndi ngTi ts wor th, ev ery g o ve r nm en t wi tn es s who co ul d i den ti fy the firs t in d ivid u al s h ow n in t h e v id eo te st ified th at it w as W olfe .” W e inter pret thi s cl ar i fi cati on a s a co ncessi on that the pro secutor ’s rem ar k was i nd eed a m i sst ate
m ent o fthe evi dence. A gain, however, W ol fe i s unabl e t o dem on str ate that h e w as p rej u d ice d by t h e p ro se c u to r’s rem ar k. T h e o n ly w i tness f am i l i arwith W ol fe’ s a pp ear ance w h o c oul d not con clusively i d en tify W olfe in the vid eo w as W olfe hi m sel f

. The f our Gover nm ent witnesse s who i dent i fi ed18 N o. 11

- 3281 W olfe in t h e v id eo w er e h i s b os s (V in ge rh oe ts ), his co - wor k er s ( Ol ds an d M o r al es ) , a nd hi s g i r l f r i en d ( Gur g o n)

— i
. e. , the f o urGo ve r nm en t wi tn es se s who knew W olfe wel l

. I t i s no t a l l thatsur pri si ng tha t T its w orth, wh o tes ti fi ed that he had onl y m et W ol fe o n one prior occasion an d in correct ly th ou gh t W olfe’s firs t n am e w as Ju s tin , cou ld n otid en tify w h o w as in th e vi d eo. T he Go ve r nm en t di d no t ta k e a “No” a nd turn i t into a “ Yes; ” i t m er el y f ailed t o m enti on the unf am i l i arwi tn es s who co ul d no t i den ti fy the m an in the vi deo

. Ev enW o l fe’ s co uns elc o nc ede d i n hi s cl o sing a r g u me n t, “ And i t p r o b a b l y i s h i m [ i n th e v i d e o ]
. ” We d o n otbe liev e t h at th e re m ar k jus tifie s a n ew tria l.

B . Vi c t i m L o s s Amo unt The dis tr i ct c ourtf ound the vic ti m lo ss am ount a ttr ibutab le t o W olfe to b e $2 ,94 7,3 48 . U .S.S.G § 2B 1.1 (b )(1) (J) ca lls f oran 1 8- l eve l i ncre ase i fthe vi cti m l oss i s be tw een $2 ,50 0,0 00 an d $7,00 0,0 00 , so W olfe ’s o ffen se lev el c alc u lat ion w as inc re as ed 1 8 le ve ls. W olfe cla im s t h e v ict im los s c alc u lat ion w as im p ro p er be c au se , he sa ys , th e e vidence di d not s up port a c al cul ati on above $2 , 500, 000. T h er efo re , h is offen se lev el sh ou ld h av e be e n 2 le ve ls low er. Spec ificall y, W olfe con ten d s tha t he w as u na w are ofthe copper theft in 200 9, thatthe valu e ofthe copper st o l e n i n 2 0 1 0 i s l i k e l y $ 2 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 o r l e s s , a n d th athe on ly loa d ed fou r tr u c ks . W e re vie w t h e c h alle n ge d vic tim l oss cal cul ati on f orcl earer ro r. U nited Sta tes v. R eese, 666 F.3d 1007, 1021 (7th C ir. 2012).N o. 11

- 3281 19

Olds des c ribed o ne addi t i ona l oc c as ion w hen W ol fe and 10 H arri s personal ly l oad ed three tr ucks, but he could not s ee w h a t th ey w er e l o a d in g o n to th e t ru ck s. Six tho u san d fiv e hu nd red p ou nd s is equ al to a p p ro xim ately 11 2.948 m etric ton s. The Go ve r nm en t ca l l ed Ol d s a s a wi tn es s atthe s en t e nc i n gh e a r i n g . O l d s t e s t i fi e d th a td u r i n gth e 2 0 1 0 s u mm er, co pp erw as lo aded, at a m i ni m um , o n fi ftee n to eighteen truc ks. Ea ch truc k w a s b e li eved to transp ort 10 se v e n b u n d l e s o fc o p p e r, wi th e a c h b u n d l e we i g hi ng approxi m ate l y 6 , 500 pound s. Ba se d o n thes e num ber s, 11 approxi m ate l y 3 70 m etr i c to ns o fco pp erwere sto l en fro m t h e K T N w areh ou se d uring the 20 10 su m m er. T h e d ist ric t cou rt fou n d th is tes tim on y cre d ible , a s w e ll as the t es ti m o ny tha t al l o fthe t ruc kl o adingwas do ne at W ol fe’ s di re cti on. W ol fe co ntends thi s was i m proper b ec ause: ( 1) Ol ds’ tes ti m ony w as conte ste d (o therte stim ony coul d b e in terpret ed to sho w 40 m etr i c to ns was st ole n in 2 00 9 a n d O ld s s aid th e t ot al n u m b er of m et ric to ns s to len d uringthe 2 01 0 su m m erwas 3 90 ) ; ( 2) the di st r i ctc o ur t r el i ed o n inf o r m at i o n fr o m Har r i s (w ho ev enthe Go ve r nm en t ac k no wl edg ed was no t cr edibl e); (3) an d the d istri ct cou rt fai led to con side r W olfe’s i nt erpr e t a t i o n o fthe r e c o r d. W e decl i ne to disturb the dist ri ct cour t’ s c re dibi l i ty d et er m in at ion s in th is m at te r. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sm ith , 57 6 F
. 3d 681, 68 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 9) ( “[ W ] e do not ‘second-gues s the tr i alj ud ge’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons. ’ ” ( quoti ng U nite d State s v. Fre nch , 29 1 F.3d 945, 951 (7th Cir. 2002))).20 N o. 11

- 3281 Furtherm or e, i t di d n ot m att erhow m any t rucks W ol fe per sonal l y l oaded. S ecti on 1 B1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B) pr ovi des that a defend ant i s a ccountabl e foro ther s’ co nd uct that is in fu rt h er an c e o f th e c rim in a l a c tiv ity an d rea so n ab ly for es ee ab le. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh e ne m an , 68 2 F .3d 62 3, 631 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. A nd r eg ar d l ess o fhow m uch copper w as stolen in D ecem ber 2009 , the d istri ct cou rt de term i ned W ol fe was a knowing parti ci pant fro m the outse t. The evi dence w as suffi ci ent t o supp or t a co ncl usi on that $2, 947, 348 of c opper ( 391. 941 m etr i c to ns) was stolen d uring the en tire copp er theft sch em e and W olfe was a kno wi ngpa r ti ci pan t f r o m the beg i nni ng . The l o ss es wer e reas o nabl y f o r es ee ab l e to W o l fe, a nd the di st r i ctc o ur t ac te d r ea so nabl y wheni t a cc ept ed th e PS R’ s vi ct i m l o ss c al cul at i o n.
C. Rest i t uti on The di st rict co ur t i m po se d a r es ti tu ti o n o r dert o ta l i ng $3 , 028, 01 1. 29
. W o l fe ch al l en g es thi s amoun t o n the gr ound that i t was notsupporte d by the j ury’ s f actual fi nd i ngs, a vio lati on o fthe Si xth A m endm ent under A pp rend i v. N ew Je r sey, 53 0 U.S
. 46 6 ( 2000 )
. S peci fi cal l y, h e conte nd s that the re cent Suprem e Court deci sio n in So uth ern U nio n C o . v. U nited Sta tes , ___ U.S
. _ __, 13 2 S
. Ct. 2344 ( 2012 ) , fi rs t, r equi re s us to ove rturn o u r l ongsta nd ing j uri sprudence thatr est i tuti on i s no t a cr i m i nal penal ty, and sec ond, m andates that al l r esti tuti on am ounts be s up port ed by the j ury’ s v er dict

. A discu ssion of the rule of A p p re ndi and the So uth ern U ni on d ecision is ne cess ary to give c o n t e x t to W olfe’sN o. 11

- 3281 21

c laim s. A pprendi sta nd s forthe propos i ti on that, “[ o] th er than the f act ofa pri orco nvict ion, any f act that i ncre ase s th e pe na lty fo r a c r im e beyon d the p rescribed statu tory m axi m um m ust be subm i tte d to a j ury, and prov ed beyo n d a r eas onabl e doubt. ” Appr e ndi, 53 0 U.S
. at49 0. “S ta tu to ry m ax im u m ” h as be en d efin ed as “t h e m ax im um se n te n ce a j ud ge can i m pose w i thout add i ti onal j ury fi nd i ngs. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Seym our, 51 9 F
. 3d 700, 709 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng Blake l y v . Was hingto n , 542 U
. S. 29 6, 3 03

- 04( 20 04 ) )
. Othe r sent encingf ac ts c anb e f o und bythe di st r i ctc o ur t us i nga pr epo nde r an ce o fthe ev id en c e s ta n d ar d

. U nited Sta tes v. K riegler, 628 F.3 d 857, 86 3 ( 7th Ci r. 201 0). The re cent tr end, i n or der to ci rcum vent l ate r const i tuti onalco ncer ns, has been to s u b m it m or e fa c ts to th e jur y. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Bo o k er, 54 3 U .S. 22 0, 27 7-7 8 (2 00 5) ( S t ev en s, J., d iss en tin g) (“ In m an y cases , pr o se cut o r s co ul d a vo i d a n [ Appr e ndi ] probl em si m plybya l l eging i n the i nd i ctm ent the f acts ne cess ary to reach the ch osen Gu idelines sen ten ce.”). T he S upr eme Co ur t co nt i nue d thi s tr en d i n Sou thern U ni on . A j ury convi cte d Souther n U ni on, a natura l ga s di st r ibut o r, on one c o unto fv i o l at i ngthe Re so ur ce Co nser vati on a nd R eco ver y Act of19 76, wh i ch al l owed f or the i m posi ti on ofa fi ne notm or e than $50 , 000 per d ay o fv i o l at in g t h e A c t. Sou t he r n Unio n , 13 2 S
. Ct. at 2349
. The pro bati on o ffi ce det er m i ned So ut h ern U ni on ha d v i o l at ed the A ct f o r 7 62 da y s, s o a maxi m um fi ne of $ 38 .1 m illion w as ap p ro p ria te
. Id. Th e d istri ct cou rt i m posed a $6 m illi on fi ne, pl us a “co m m unity s er vi ce ob liga tio [n ]” o f $1 2 m illion

. Id. So uthern U ni on a rgued that A pprendi app l i ed to cr i m i nal fi nes, and beca use22 N o. 11

- 3281 th e j ur y was o nl y r equi r ed t o fi nd a v i o l at i o n f o r o ne d ay (the j ury ve rd ict f orm only l isted the vio la tion’s st ar t dat e) , the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s i m po si ti o n o fa fi ne gr eat erthan the $ 50, 000 si ngl e- day penal ty requir ed ex tra fact-find ing in viol ation of Appr e ndi

. Id. The Gover nm ent c onte nd ed that Appr e ndidi d not a pp l y t o c rim in al fi n es . Id. The U. S
. Co ur t o fAppea l s f o r the F i r s t C i r c u i t a c c e p t e d th e Go v e r n me n t ’ s a r g u me n t an d u p h eld th e fin e. Id. T h e Suprem e Cour t r eve rs ed, hol ding that “the rule of A pprendi ap p lies to th e im p os itio n of cr im in al fin es .” Id
. at 2357
. Th e Co ur t s t a t e d tha t i t ha d ne v e r di sti ngui shed bet w een types ofpunishm ents

— e. g . , s en tence s, penaltie s, o r pu ni shm ents

— an d “ [ w]h er e a fi ne i s s u b s t a n t i a l e n o u g h t o t r i g g e r a p a r t y ’ s [ S i x th A me n dm en t jur y t ria l righ t], Appr e ndi appli es i n full

. ” Id. at23 51- 52. I n re sponse to the Gover nm ent’ s pol i cy concerns, the Cour t co ncl u d ed that applying Appr e ndito cr i m i nal fi nes was si m plyan e xpected extens i on o fthe doctr ine. Id. at23 57. W e r ev i ew a n A pprendi chal l enge deno vo . Seymour, 519 F. 3d at 709. H o wev er, W o l fe f ai l ed to o bj ec t to the r es ti tu ti o n o r der on Appr e ndigr ounds i n the dist ri ct c ourt, so the Gover nm ent ar gues w e shoul d r eview h is ar gu m en t f o r p lain err or . See U nited Sta tes v. Fluk er, N os . 11-1 01 3, 11 -30 08 & 11 -30 82 , 20 1 2 U .S . A p p . L E X IS 2 2 2 1 9 , a t * 3 4 ( 7 th C i r . O c t
. 2 6 2 0 1 2 ) ( s t a t i n g th a t we re vi ew a sente nc in g chal l enge f orpl ai n er ro r i fi t was not mad e i n the di s t ri ct co ur t )
. Wo l fe p o i nt s o ut, a nd a re vi ew o fo ur ca se l aw dem onst ra tes , a disputed questi onN o. 11

- 3281 23

To the e x t e ntW ol fe be l i e ve s tha twe s ho ul d c r e a t e a n e x c e p- 12 ti on to this rule because ofthe G overnm ent’ s content ion that a l e g a l a r g u me n to n a p p e a l b a s e d o n a s u b s e q u e n tS u p r e me C o u r tc a s e c a n n e v e r p r e s e n ta “ c l e a r o r o b v i o u s ” e r r o r , we do no tne ed t o de c i de thi s i s s ue bec aus e the r es ul the re i s the sa m e r eg a r d le ss o f w h ic h sta n d a rd o f re v ie w is a p p lie d

. S ee U n i te d S tat es v. B oden , 854 F. 2d 98 3 , 9 9 0 n. 2 ( 7th Cir

. 1988) ( s t at i ng that“[ i ] n a l m os tal l c ases , i nc l udi ng thi s on e, the re su lt w ill b e t h e sa m e u n d er an y sta n d a rd ” ). as t o whi chs ta nda r d s ho uld be a ppl i ed to a n Appr e ndi chal l enge i fthe i ssue w as not ra ise d in the di str i ct c ourt
. Citing Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Kam oga , 1 77 F. 3d 617, 62 2 n. 5 ( 7th Cir
. 19 99) , W ol fe co ntends w e s houl d app l y a deno vo re vi ew because the qu est i on bef or e us i s purely l ega l

— i.e., w hetherr est i tuti on i s a cr i m i nal penalt y, subj ect to Appr e ndi

. An Appr e ndich alle n ge is re vie w ed for p lain err or if it w as not m ade i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. Se eU nite d S t at e s v. 12 He r n a n d ez , 33 0 F
. 3d 964, 97 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. A ccor dingl y, w e r evi ew W ol fe’ s Appr e ndiargum en t for p lai n error. N ow to the m er i ts ofW ol fe’ s a rgum ent: W o l fe ar g ue s th athi s r es ti tu ti o n o r deri s si m il ar t o the cr i m i na l fi ne i n Sou t he r n Unio n because the or der i s a “l i fel ong p aym ent b urden. ” Yet, the onl y way So uth ern U ni on m ay affec t th e o utcom e o fthi s ca se i s i fwe fi rs t co nc l ude res ti tu ti o n i s a cr i m i na l pe na l ty
. ( I fs o , the issue be com es w he th er Sou t he r n Unio n ’ s ho l ding that A pprendi appli es to cri m i nal fi nes s houl d extend to an ot h er ty p e o f cr im in al p en alt y : res tit u tio n .) Re ac hi ng24 N o. 11

- 3281

su c h a c on c lu sio n, ho w ev e r , w ou ld be in d ire c t o p p os iti on t o thi s Ci rcui t’ s wel l

- est abl i shed prece d en t that re st itu tio n is n ota c rim in al p en alt y. See U nited Sta tes v. B o nn er, 522 F. 3d 804, 807 ( 7th Cir . 200 8); see also U nite d State s v. LaG rou D is tr ib. Sys. , Inc. , 46 6 F
. 3d 585, 593 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 6) ( “W e r ei ter ate : r est i tuti on i s no t a p en alty for a cri m e for A pprendi p urpo se s sinc e r es ti tu
t i o n f o r h a r m d o n e i s a c l a s s i c c i v i l r e me d y th a ti s a dm i ni ste re d fo r convenie nce bythe cour ts that have enter ed cr i m i nal co nvi cti ons. ” ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks o m i t t e d ) )
. Wo l fe a d mi t t e d th i s a t o r a l a r g u me n ta nd co nc ede d tha t we wou l d ha ve t o o ve r r ul e o urpr ec ede nt to find i n h is f avor. H avi ng exam i ned our si ste r ci rcui ts w ho have ad d re ss ed w h et h er res tit u tio nis c i vil or cr im in al in na tu r e, we fi nd o ur se l ve s i n th e m i no r i ty
. Onl y the Eighth and Tenth Cir cui ts, l i ke us, have f ound res ti tuti on to be civ il in n at u re . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M i l l ot, 43 3 F
. 3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating th at restitut ion orde rs “a r e no t in the na tu r e o fa c r i m i na l pe na l ty
. ” ( quo ting U nite d State s v. C arruth , 418 F.3d 900 , 904 (8th C ir. 2005))); U nite d S ta te s v. N ichols , 169 F.3d 125 5, 1279 -80 (10th C ir. 1999 ) ( sta ti n g th at the purpose o fr est i tuti on under the Vi cti m W i tness Pro tect i on Act “is n ot to pu ni sh defen dan ts o r pro vi de a wi ndf al l f o r c r i m e vi ct i m s but ra th er t o e n su re th at vic tim s, to th e g re at es t e x te n t p os sibl e, ar e m ade wh ol e forthei r l oss es. ” ( quo ting U nited State s v. A rut unoff

, 1 F. 3d 1112, 1121 (10th Cir. 1993))). Buta “ co m pel l i ngr ea so n” i s r equi r ed to o ve r r ul e o ur C irc u it’s p re c ed en t. U nite d State s v. Kendri ck, 647 F. 3d 732,N o. 11

- 3281 25 73 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. Be i ngi n the min o r i tyis n o t en o ug h. T h is is t r u e e v e n if th e t re n d is ag ain st u s. Se ePat e l v. H o lder, 563 F.3d 56 5 , 5 6 9

- 71 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ) (R ip p le, J., concurr i ng) ( agr eeing with the c ourt ’s j ud gm ent b ecause i t was b as ed o n thi s Circ ui t’ s pr ec ede ntb utwri ting se par at ely to d is cus s ho w ouri nt er pr et at i o n o fthe sta tute “puts us o n th e di stinct m i nor i ty si de ofan intercircu it spli t”); but se e R uss v. Watts , 41 4 F
. 3d 783, 78 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( d escribingwhy we may o ve r tu r n o ur Ci r cui t pr ec ed en t i fno o th erc i r cui t ac ce pts i t ( quo ting U nite d State s v. H il l , 48 F. 3d 228, 232 (7th Cir. 1995))). W ol fe’ s onl y othe r ar gum ents as to w hy w e shoul d tr eat r e s t i t u t i o n a s a c r i mi n a l p e n a l t y a r e th a tth e S u p r e me Court re fer re d to re sti tuti on a s a “cr i m inalpunishm ent” i n P a squa ntin o v . U nited Sta tes , 544 U
. S. 349, 365 (2005 ), th e r es ti tu ti o n o r deri s a “s i g ni fi ca nti nfr i ng ement o n [ hi s ] f re e do m, ” a nd Appr e ndisho uld be “e xtended b ro ad ly.” W e hav e a l re ady r ej ecte d the Pasq uan t i no ar gum ent, so th at arg u m en t i s u n av ailin g. S ee B o nn er, 52 2 F
. 3d at 807. Li kewis e, wh ethera cour t j ud gm en t infr i nges up on som eon e’s l ife d oes not m ake th e j ud g m e n t inhe ren tly c r i m i na l. Fore xa m pl e, a de fen dan t who i s f o und l i abl e ina c i v i l t o r tc a s e c o ul d a l s o b e o n the h o o kf or a s ign ifica n t d am ag e a w ar d

. Se e, e . g. , Kim berli n v . D e Lon g, 637 N
. E.2 d 121, 12 9 ( I nd

. 19 94) ( up hol ding a $ 1, 610, 000 j ury ve rd ict against th e d efend an t in an inte n tional tort case ). That ty pe ofaward w oul d surel y i n frin ge upon an ind ivid u al’s fina n c ial fre ed om , b u t n o on e w ou ld ar g ue tha t th e d amag e awar d, i m po se d unde r the sam e p r e p ond eran ce of the evid en ce stan d ard W olfe26 N o. 11

- 3281

es se nt i al l y c o nt es ts , i nvokes a ny S i xth Am en dm en t co nce r ns . And the de g r ee t o whi ch Appr e ndii s e xtended has l i ttl e v al ue wh en an sw er i ng the i ni ti alquesti on b e f o r e u s : wh e th e r r e s t i t u t i o n i s a c r i mi n a l p e n a l t y . As w e s ta te d , Sou t he r n Unio n and the s c op e of Appr e ndi on ly c om e in t o c o n sid er at ion if w e firs t c on c lu d e re st ituti on i s a cr i m i nal penal ty. W e decl i ne to r eac h such a co nc l us i o n. W ol fe has notpro vi ded us with a c om pel l i ng r eas on as t o why th e ho l di ngi n Sou t he r n Unio n

— o r thi s ca se i n gene ra l

— shou ld be u sed as the ve hicle to overtu rn our l ong- sta nd i ng Ci rcui t pr ecedent that re sti tuti on i s no t a cr i m i na l pe na l ty
. The di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r es ti tu
ti o n o r derwas no t r equi r ed to b e su ppo r te d b y the j ur y ’ s f a c t
- fi nd i ng, a nd the r e f o r e , i tdi d n o tv i o l ate W ol fe’ s S i xth A m endm ent r i ghts.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e A F F IRMthe j udg m en t o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t f o r the re aso ns di scusse d above

.

12- 5- 12