United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 1, 2013

Decided October 2, 2013

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 12-3297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FRANCIS X. SANCHEZ , 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Western Division.

No. 10 CR 50073-1

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge.

ORDER

For almost a decade Francis Sanchez and his codefendant pretended to be in the

business of buying and flipping distressed residential properties. They lured almost 100

investors with promises of profits from their rehabbing projects, as well as from a

luxury rental community they were building near Acapulco with backing from Mexican

authorities. None of this was true; the partners were running a Ponzi scheme that

collapsed after they took in more than $10 million. The government charged Sanchez

with 20 counts of mail or wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, but dropped all but one

count as part of a plea agreement. He was sentenced to 136 months’ imprisonment and

ordered to pay restitution of $7.9 million. Sanchez filed a notice of appeal, but his newly

appointed lawyer contends that the appeal is frivolous and seeks permission to

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 12-3297 Page 2

withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sanchez opposes counsel’s

motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential issues identified in

counsel’s facially adequate brief and in Sanchez’s response. See United States v. Schuh,

289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002). 

Sanchez has told counsel that he wants his guilty plea set aside, so the lawyer

first discusses whether the defendant might challenge the adequacy of the plea colloquy

or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir.

2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002). Before sentencing

Sanchez contemplated moving to withdraw his plea, but he never filed a motion.

Accordingly, we would review only for plain error. See United States v. Dominguez

Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Driver, 242 F.3d 767, 769 (7th Cir.

2001). 

The transcript of the plea colloquy confirms that the district court substantially

complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, from which we can infer that

Sanchez understood his procedural rights and the consequences of pleading guilty.

See FED R. CRIM. P. 11; United States v. Blalock, 321 F.3d 686, 688 (7th Cir. 2003); Schuh, 289

F.3d at 975. The court neglected to tell Sanchez that he could compel witnesses to attend

and testify at trial, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(E), but the lawyer correctly dismisses this

omission as inconsequential because that information was included in the written plea

agreement that Sanchez admittedly had read and reviewed with his attorney. See United

States v. Davenport, 719 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 2013); Driver, 242 F.3d at 771. Counsel has

not identified any other shortcoming in the colloquy, and thus we agree with the lawyer

that an appellate challenge to Sanchez’s guilty plea would be frivolous. 

Counsel next considers whether Sanchez could argue that the district court erred

in calculating a loss amount exceeding $7 million; that figure prompted an upward

adjustment of 20 levels. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K). The probation officer arrived at a

total loss of $7.9 million by subtracting from gross receipts the amounts returned to

investors as principal or “profits.” That is the appropriate means of calculating loss

from a Ponzi scheme, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(E); United States v. Walsh, 723 F.3d

802, 807–09 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Setser, 568 F.3d 482, 497 (5th Cir. 2009); United

States v. Nichols, 416 F.3d 811, 819–20 (8th Cir. 2005), and at no time did Sanchez dispute

the probation officer’s math. As counsel notes, Sanchez’s failure to contest the probation

officer’s calculation and to offer competing evidence would render frivolous an

appellate claim challenging the district court’s adoption of that calculation. See Walsh,

723 F.3d at 809; United States v. Sensmeier, 361 F.3d 982, 989 (7th Cir. 2004).
No. 12-3297 Page 3

Counsel further contemplates whether an argument can be made that Sanchez’s

prison sentence is unreasonable. The 136-month term is within the guidelines range of

121 to 151 months, and thus it is presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551

U.S. 338, 341 (2007). The district court arrived at that sentence after evaluating the

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Sanchez’s “good personal history” and lack of

prior fraudulent conduct, the large number of victims, the significant loss, the small

chance that victims would be compensated, and the need to deter others from

committing similar frauds. See id. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (C). Counsel has not identified

any ground to rebut the presumption of reasonableness, and neither have we. Thus, an

argument that the prison sentence is unreasonable would be frivolous. 

Counsel last considers whether Sanchez could argue that the amount of

restitution is overstated. The lawyer concludes, and we agree, that an appellate claim

would be frivolous. Restitution must reflect the amount of loss actually caused by the

defendant’s offense. See United States v. Dokich, 614 F.3d 314, 318-19 (7th Cir. 2010). The

government relied on the victims’ bank records and the defendants’ own business

records to trace the funds received from, and returned to, the victims. The net amount

of approximately $7.9 million is the correct calculation in setting restitution for

Sanchez’s fraudulent scheme. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3556, 3663A; Dokich, 614 F.3d at 320. (In

his Rule 51(b) response, Sanchez proposes to argue that the restitution order must be set

aside because the amount was not charged in the indictment and proved beyond a

reasonable doubt; he makes the same contention about the guidelines loss. We have

said repeatedly, though, that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), does not apply

to the calculation of restitution. United States v. LaGrou Distrib. Sys., Inc., 466 F.3d 585,

593 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Behrman, 235 F.3d 1049, 1054 (7th Cir. 2000). Likewise,

Apprendi does not apply to upward adjustments under the guidelines. See, e.g., United

States v. Hollins, 498 F.3d 622, 633 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971, 988

(7th Cir. 2006).)

Sanchez proposes one other appellate claim in his Rule 51(b) response: that the

indictment is insufficient to charge mail fraud because, on his view, it is short on dates

and does not accuse him in every numbered paragraph of engaging in “fraud” or

“fraudulent behavior.” Yet his unconditional guilty plea waived any claim about defects

in the indictment. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 632–33 (2002). And, at all

events, the indictment outlines a nine-year scheme that Sanchez and his partner devised

to defraud investors of millions, and it describes numerous misrepresentations they

made to accomplish that end. The government needed only to allege that Sanchez

devised a scheme “to deceive or cheat” his victims and that he used the mail to execute
No. 12-3297 Page 4

that scheme. See United States v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773, 789 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v.

Henningsen, 387 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the only date that matters is the

date of the mailing. See United States v. Danford, 435 F.3d 682, 688 (7th Cir. 2005); United

States v. Tadros, 310 F.3d 999, 1006 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, even a timely challenge to this

indictment would have been frivolous. 

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.