# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d October 1, 2013 Deci ded October 2, 2013 Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROO K, Circ uit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WI LLIAMS , Circ uit Judge JOHN DANIEL TIND ER, Circ uit Judge
No. 12-3297
UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. FRANCI S X. S ANCHEZ , Defen dant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Nort hern Di stric t of Illinoi s, Western Di vis i on. No. 10 CR 50073-1
Phi li p G. Reinhard, Judge

. ORDER
For almost a decade Franci s Sanchez and hi s codefend ant pret ended to be inthe bus i ness of buyi ng and fli ppi ng di stressed resi denti al proper ties . They lured almost 100 i nvestor s wi th pro mi ses of profi ts from their rehabbing projects, as well asfrom a luxury r ental commun i ty t hey were bui lding near Acapulco wi th backing from M exic an authoriti es. None of thi s was tr ue; the part ners were runni ng a Ponzisch eme that collapsed after they t ook i n more t han $10 mi lli on. The gov ernment charged S anchez wi th 20 counts of mai l or wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, but dr opped all but one count as part of a plea agr eement. He was s entenced to 136 mont hs’ i mpri sonment and or dered t o pay r esti tution of $7.9 mi lli on. Sanchez fi led a notic e of appeal, but hi s new ly appoi nted lawyer cont ends that the appeal i s fri vo lous and s eeks permis si on to N O N P R E C E D E N T I A L D I S P O S I T I O N T o b e c i te d only i n a c c o r d an c e wi th F e d

. R

. Ap p . P

. 3 2

. 1No. 12-3297 Page 2

wi thdraw under Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sanchez opposes couns el’s motion. See C I R
. R. 51(b). We c onfine our r eview to the pot entiali ssu es i denti fi ed i n couns el’s fac i ally adequate brief an d in Sanchez’s response. See Un ited States v. Schuh , 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Ci r. 2002). Sanchez has told couns el that he wants hi s gui lty plea set asid e, so the lawyer fi rst dis cus ses whether t he defendant mi ght challenge the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the vo luntarin ess of the plea. See Un ited States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United S tat es v. Kn ox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002). Bef or e sentencing Sanchez contemplated moving to wi thdraw hi s plea, bu t he never fi led a motion. Accordi ngly, we would review only for plainerr or . See Un ited States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 76 (7th Cir. 2004); United S tat es v. Driver, 242 F.3d 767, 769 (7th Cir. 2001). The transcri pt of the plea colloquy confi rms that the dis tr i ct court substanti ally compli ed wi th Feder al Rule of Crim i nal Procedure 11, from whi ch w e can infer that Sanchez understood his procedural r i ghts and the consequenc es of pleading guil ty. See F E D R. C RI M
. P. 11; United S tat es v. Blalock , 321 F.3d 686, 688 (7th Cir. 2003); Schu h , 289 F.3d at 975. The court neglected to tell Sanchez that he could compel wi tnesses to atte nd and testi fy at t rial, see F E D
. R. C RI M
. P. 11(b) (1)( E), bu t the lawyer corr ectly dis mi sses thi s omi ssi on as i nconsequ entialbecau se that in formation was inclu ded i n the wri tte n plea agr eement that S anchez adm i tte dly had read and rev i ewed wi th hi s attor ney. See United States v. Davenport

, 719 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 2013); Driver, 242 F.3d at 771. Co uns el has not identi fi ed any ot her short coming i n the colloquy, and thus we agree wi th the lawyer that an appellate challenge to Sanchez’s gui lty plea would be fri vo lous. Counsel next consi ders whether S anchez c ould argue t hat the dis tr i ct court er red i n calc ulati ng a loss amount exceedi ng $7 mi lli on; that figure pro mpted an upw ard adjustment of 20 leve ls. See U.S.S .G. § 2B1.1(b )(1) (K). The probation offi cer arr i ved ata tot al loss of $7.9 mi lli on by subtracti ng from g ro ss recei pts the amounts retur ned to i nvestor s as p rinc i pal or “pr ofi ts.” That i s the appropr i ate means of calc ulati ng loss from a Ponzisch eme, see U.S.S .G. § 2B1.1, cm t. n.3(E); United S tat es v. Walsh , 723 F.3d 802, 807–09 (7th Ci r. 2013); United S tat es 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 t i me di d Sanchez di spute the pro bati on offi cer’s math. As couns el notes, Sanchez’s fai lure to contest the pr obation offi cer’s calc ulati on and to o ffer competi ng evidenc e would render frivolous an appellate clai m ch allengi ng the dis tr i ct court’s adopt i on of that calc ulati on. See Walsh , 723 F.3d at 809; United States v. Sensme ier, 361 F.3d 982, 989 (7th Cir. 2004)
.No. 12-3297 Page 3

Counsel fu rt her contemplates whether an ar gument can be m ade that S anchez’s pris on sentence i s un reasonable. The 136-m onth te rm i s wi thi n the gui deli nes range of 121 to 151 mo nths, and thus i t is presumpti vely reasonable. See R ita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 341 (2007). The di stric t courtarr i ved at that sentence after e valuating the factors i n 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), i nclu di ng Sanchez’s “goo d personal hi stor y” and lack of prior fraudulent conduc t, the lar ge number of vic tim s, the si gni fi cant loss, the sm all chanc e that v i cti ms w ould be compens ated, and the need to deter other s from commi tting si mi lar frauds. See id. § 3553(a)( 1), (a) (2)( B), (C) . Counsel has not identi fi ed any gr ound to r ebut the presumpti on of re asonablenes s, and n ei ther hav e we. Thu s, an arg ument that the pr i son sentence i s un reasonable would be frivolous. Counsel las t consi ders whether S anchez c ould argue t hat the amount o f restituti on i s over stated. The lawyer concludes , and we agree, t hat an appellate clai m would be frivolous. Resti tution mu st reflect the amount o f loss ac tually caused b y the defendant’s offens e. See Un ited States v. Dok ich , 614 F.3d 314, 318-19 (7th Ci r. 2010). The gov ernment r eli ed on the v i cti ms’ ban k r ecords and the defendants’ own b usiness recor ds to tr ace the fund s recei ved fro m, and returned to , the victi ms. The net amount of approx i mately $7.9 mi lli on i s the corr ect calcu lation in settin g r esti tution for Sanchez’s fraudu lent schem e. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3556, 3663A ; Dokich , 614 F.3d at 320. (In hi s Rule 51(b ) response, Sanchez proposes to ar gue that t he restituti on or der must be set asi de becau se the amount was n ot charg ed i n the i ndi ctment and prov ed beyond a reasonable doubt; he makes the same contenti on about the g ui deli nes loss . We have sai d repeat edly, tho ugh, that Apprendi v. Ne w Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), does not apply to t he calc ulati on of re sti tution. United S tates v. LaGrou Distrib. Sys., In c. , 466 F.3d 585, 593 (7th Ci r. 2006); United S tat es v. Behrman , 235 F.3d 1049, 1054 (7th Cir. 2000). Li kewi se, Apprendi does not apply t o upward adjustments under the gui deli nes. See, e.g. , United States v. Hollins , 498 F.3d 622, 633 (7th Cir. 2007); United S tat es v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971, 988 (7th Ci r. 2006).) Sanchez propo ses one other appellat e clai m in hi s Rule 51(b ) response: that the i ndi ctment i s insu ffi ci ent to charge mai l fraud bec ause, on hi s vi ew, i t is short o n dates and does not accus e hi m in ever y numbered paragr aph of engaging in “fraud” or “fraudulent behavi or .” Yet his unc ondi tional gui lty plea wai ved any clai m about defects i n the i ndi ctment. See Un ited States v. Cott on, 535 U.S. 625, 632–33 (2002). And, at all event s, the i ndi ctment outlin es a nine-year scheme that Sanchez and hi s partner dev i sed to defr aud investor s of mi lli ons, and i t describes nu merous mi srepresentat i ons they made to accompli sh that end. The gover nment needed only to allege that Sanchez devis ed a sch eme “to deceive or cheat” his vic tim s and that he us ed the mai l to ex ecuteNo. 12-3297 Page 4

that scheme. See Un ited States v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773, 789 (7th Ci r. 2006); United S tat es v. Henn ingsen , 387 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir. 2004). Moreo ver , the only dat e that matt ers i s the date of t he mai li ng. See Un ited States v. Danford, 435 F.3d 682, 688 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Ta dros , 310 F.3d 999, 1006 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus , even a t i mely challenge to t hi s i ndi ctment would have been fri vo lous. The moti on to wi thdraw i s GRANTED , and the appeal i s DISMISSED

.