“tro 450(Rev, 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

United States District Court

Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division

Robert Wilson JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
v. Case Number: 03 C 749
United States of America

oO Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been
tried and the jury rendered its verdict.

a Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues
have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petitioner’s section 2255 petition is
denied.

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: 7/1/2003 Dy OS ‘ X .

Willie A. Haynes, Deputy Clerk



Oe MiniS4order Mer (06/97)

AGS

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

6)

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge If Other
than Assigned Judge

James B. Moran

CASE NUMBER 03 C 749 DATE 7/1/2003
CASE Robert Wilson vs. United States of America
TITLE
[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, c.g,. plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented, }
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) va] Brief in support of motion due __
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearingfheld/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(e) im Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) o {Bench/Jury trial] [Ifearing] held/continued to at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(t) Cl FRCP4I(a)(2).
ao ff [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Petitioner’s Section 2255 petition
is denied.
dl) @f {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
number of notices:

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

7 : JUL 03
Notified counsel by telephone. 0, a
a | Docketing to mail notices.
| Mail 40-450 form. Lund Es ESI “SN dockesing pty inn
fee
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
courtroom e238 Nd Z- uy gy date maled noise
WAH deputy’s
initials

4 sey
Sater reckived in
central Clerk's Office

railing deputy iitinle



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT WILSON, pro se, )
)
Petitioner, )
) _ }
vs. ) No, 03 C749 nwo” ,
~ gecKeneD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) pot ia)
) 37}
Respondent. ) aN

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Robert Wilson was convicted of wire fraud on March 22, 2001, and he was thereafter
sentenced to a 23-month term of imprisonment and three years supervised release, and was
directed to pay $28,288.54 in restitution, Toward the end of his custody sentence he filed this
§2255 petition. It became fully briefed after petitioner’s projected release date.

He alleges five grounds for relief, none of which has merit. He claims that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel, that the indictment was insufficient because it did not allege
materiality, that the evidence was insufficient, that the court erred in enhancing his sentence
for more than minimal planning, and that the court erred in ordering restitution in the amount
of $28,288.54.

The government contends that four of the five claims are barred because the defendant
failed to raise them on direct appeal. It may be right about that, but petitioner’s claim may
more properly be that he received ineffective assistance of counsel both at trial and also on

appeal became those claims were not raised on appeal — he was represented at trial and on

appeal by the same counsel, But we need not dwell on it. This court expressly recalls that trial



«
Na, 03 C 749 Page2

counsel mounted a very aggressive defense, but the four claims just were not available to
defendant. The indictment clearly alleged that defendant engaged in a scheme to defraud “by
means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses and representations,” the evidence of guilt
was compelling, the scheme clearly involved more than minimal planning by defendant, and
the restitution order was proper. If, and only if, some of the loss was recovered from another
source, defendant would be entitled to a credit, but he has failed to show that ever happened.

That leaves us with petitioner’s claims that he somehow was prejudiced by failure of
counsel to attack the loss of tapes of his interrogation by agents (there is nothing to
substantiate his assertion that there were such tapes, nor does he specify how he could have
been prejudiced), by the failure to call an alleged business associate as a witness (there is
nothing to suggest his testimony would have been helpful to defendant and, indeed, the
government asserts that the associate’s grand jury testimony inculpated defendant), by the
failure to call witnesses who would have testified that defendant did engage in commercial
loans with the expectation of commissions (which was beside the point), and that jurors in a
post-trial interview expressed doubts about the sufficiency of the evidence (defendant was not

there, the court was, and that did not happen). That claim is without merit.

JAMES B. MORAN

Senior Judge, U. S. District Court
fal H , 2003.