## 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. 09

- 1856 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R OBERT J. C ANTRE LL, 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 . 2:07- cr -00044- RL -PRC -1

—RudyL ozano, Judge
.
A RGUED M AY 24, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 11, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d P O SNER an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Ci r c u i tJudg e . Dur i nghi s l i fet i m e, whi chs pan s al m o st7 0 y ea r s, Ro be r t Can tr el l a cc o m pl i sh ed m an y thi ngs. I n a b ri efo n thi s ap p eal, hi s a tto rneywri tes that “Cantre l l i s a n I n d ian a l ege nd and her o. ” The br i efgo es on ( f or m any pages) noti ng that Cantrel l w as a c ollege b a s e b a ll an d ba sk etb all st ar “fe ed in g a ss ist s t o C az zie2 N o. 09

- 1856

Russ el l went on t o bec om e the fi rs t pi c k i n the 19 66 dra ftan d 1 spent twelve se asons i n the N BA

. H e was on the 1970 K nick s team tha t be at the L ak ers in th e N B A fina ls. htt p:// en. w iki ped ia. org/wiki/ Cazzie_Ru ss el l ( las t visi ted J uly 6, 2 0 1 0 ). Russel l ” duri ng M i chi gan’ s 1 964 Fina l Fo ur r un, a l ong-

1 ti m e t eacher, a decor ate d w ar v ete ra n, a bel ove d hu s b a nd , f a the r, a nd g r a nd f ath e r, a me nt o r t o n e e dy students, and a wel l

- known publi c se rv an t in I nd i ana. U nfo rtunatel y, durin g th e pastdecade, Cantre l l al so got into som e serious trou ble. Spec ifically, a j ury f o und tha t he c o m m itt ed ho ne sts er vi ce s f r au d, us i ng his p ositi on in p ub li c o ff ice to steer cont racts to a third pa r t y i n e xc ha ng e f o r k i c kb a c k s ( a c uto fthe p r o c e e ds f r o m th e c o n t r a c t s ) , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C

. § § 1 3 4 1 an d 13 46 . H e a lso c o m m itt ed ins u ra n c e fra u d , d ec ep tiv ely proc ur i ngc o v e r a g e f o r t wo o fh i s c hi l dr e n, i n v i o l a t i on of18 U
. S. C. § 1 341. A nd he filed f al se i ncom e t ax re turns, failin g t o re portthe ki ckba cks, i n vi ol ati on o f 26 U
. S. C. § 7206 ( 1)

. A s pun i shm ent f or hi s el eve n co u nts ofco nvi ctio n, Cantre l l r ecei ved co ncurr ent s entence s o f 78 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t. The s en te nc e was wi th i n the gui del i ne r ange f orhi s co nvi ctions. H e no w appeal s, ar gui ng pri m ar ily that hi s s entence was i m proper because the dist ri ct j ud ge appli ed an i ncor re c t gui del i ne and f ai led to addres s hi s a rgum ents f orl eni ency. Cantrel l al so prese rv ed a c hal l enge to hi s fo ur co nvi ct i o ns o n the h o ne s ts e r v i c e s fr a ud c o un t s o n the g r o un ds th at 18 U .S.C . § 13 46 is u n c on st itu tio n ally va gu e. N o c h all en g e i s l o d g e d a g a i n s t th e th r e e i n s u r a n c e f r a u d o r t he f o urt a x c o un t s u nd e r wh i c h he wa s c o nv i c t e d.N o. 09

- 1856 3

N or th Towns hi p i s a uni tofgover nm en t( the e xe c ut i ve i s the 2 tow nsh ip tr u st e e ) co v erin g the cities of H am m on d , E ast C hic ago , W hi t ing , H i ghl and, an d M uns t er . I ti s the s ec ond l argest towns hi p i n the s t at e and i s r es pons ibl e f or poor rel ie f, a m on g othe r thi ng s . Nor th To wns hip Trustee , h tt p ://w w w .n o rt h tow nshi ptrust ee. com ( las t vi sit ed Ju ly 6, 2 0 1 0 ). Al th o u g h th i s i s p r i ma r i l y a se n t e n c i n ga p p e a l, we be g i n b y b r i efl y a ddr es singCa nt r el l ’ s pr es er ve d a r g um en t re gar ding hi s § 13 46 c onvi cti on. W hi l e thi s ca se w as pe nd i ngo n a pp e a l, the S up r e me Co ur tde c i ded Ski l l i ng v . U nited Sta tes , 5 61 U. S

. ___, 2 01 0 W L 2 51 85 87( 20 10 ), B la ckv. U nited Sta tes , 561 U
. S.
___, 201 0 W L 2 5185 93 (2010), a nd Weyh ra u c h v . U nited Sta tes , 5 6 1 U
. S

. ___, 2 0 1 0 WL 2518 696 ( 2010 ) , al l o fwh i ch i nvol ved the hon estse rv i ces st atut e. I n Ski l l i ng, the m ostco m prehensi ve ofthe thre e opi ni ons, the Court obs er ved that“[ t] he ‘ vastm aj or i ty’ of t h e h on e s t
- se rv ice s c as es inv olv ed offe n d er s w h o, in vi ol ati on o fa fi du ci ar y duty, part i ci pated i n brib er y o r ki ckba ck schem es. ” Ski l l i ng, 2010 W L 2 5185 87, at * 27. Bas ed o n thi s observat i o n a nd a de si r e to a vo i d “ ta k i ng a wreck i ng ba l l to a sta tute that can be sa l vage d thro ugh a r eas onabl e nar ro w i ng i nt er p retat i on, ” i d. at* 28 n. 44, th e C o u r tu l t i ma t e l y h e l d th a t, “ [ i ] n t e r p r e t e d t o e n c o mpass on l y b riber y a nd ki ckba ck schem es, § 1346 i s no t unconsti tuti onal l y v ague. ” Id. at * 30. The i nd i ctm ent c harg ed Cantrel l with using hi s pos i ti on as a publ i c o ffi ci alo fN orth T ow n shi p ofLake County, In d ian a, to se c u re c on tr ac ts for A d d ict ion an d Fa m ily

2 Care, I nc. ( A FC), a counsel i ng co m pany owned by an acquai ntance, N ancy Fr om m , i n exchange fo r a s hare o f4 N o. 09

- 1856 the pr oce eds fro m the cont ra c ts
. By f ai l i ng to f ai rl y, honest l y, and c andidl y aw ar d c ontr acts , Cantrel l def r au ded N o r th To wnshi p a nd i ts c i ti ze ns o fthe i r r i g ht to h is h ones t s er vi ces. Thi s was cl ear l y a ki ckba ck s c he me, s o § 13 46

— ev en as pare d dow n by Ski l l i ng

— appli es to Cantrel l

. A s h e present s no o therchal l enge t o h i s c o nv i c t i o ns , the y wi l l n o tb e di s t urb e d. Cantrel l pri m ar i l y r ai ses two se ntenci ng i ssues , wh i ch i nv o l v e the di str i c tj ud g e ’ s a pp l i c a t i o n o fU. S

. S

. G. § 2 C1. 1 a nd hi s con si derat i on o fCantre l l ’ s a rgum ents for len ien c y. O u r re vie w of th e f o r m e r i s o n ly for p lain er ro r, as C an tr ell faile d to ob je c t t o t h e g u id elin e c alc u lat ion s a t s e n te n c in g. U nite d State s v. G arre tt, 52 8 F
. 3d 525, 52 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. A s a re sul t, Cantre l l m ust e stabl i shtha t th e di st rict j udg e co m m i tt ed er r o r, tha t i s pl ain, an d th at affe c te d h is s u b st an tia l righ ts
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. B aretz , 411 F.3d 867, 875 (7th C ir. 2005). Cantrel l cl ai m s that the di str ict ju dge sho uld have appli ed U

. S. S. G. § 2 B1
. 1 , e nti t l e d, “ La r c e ny, Emb e z z l em ent, and Other F or m s o fTheft;
. . . , ” inst ead of U
. S. S. G. § 2 C1. 1, enti tl ed, “Off er i ng, G iving, S ol i ci ti ng, o r Recei vi ng a Br ibe ; . . . F r au d I nv o l ving th e D epr i va ti o n o fthe I nt an gib le R igh t t o H on es t Se r v i c e s o fP u b lic O fficia ls; .

. . ,” because hi s co nd uct wa s m or e aki n to si m ple theft than honestse rv i ces f ra ud

. H e j usti fi es hi s pos i ti on a l m ost ex cl us i ve l y on o urde ci si o n i n U nited Sta tes v. O rsburn , 52 5 F.3d 543 ( 7th Cir. 20 0 8 ). Th ere, T eresa O rsbu rn

— who w as a p p oi nted to ke ep r eco rds a nd wri te checks by the t own shi p’s tr ustee , herhusband, M i chael

— w ro te chec k s to he r husba nd us i nge r as ab l e i nk

. Af te r theN o. 09

- 1856 5

In a rg u ing tha t his con d u ct d id no t inv olv e k ickb ack s, C an trell 3 t ru m p e t s th e f a c tth a tth e fi r s tc o n t r a c tb e t we e n AF C a nd N orth Tow nsh ip p redated his em ploym ent w ith the lat ter
. T his is im m a t e r i al, how ev er, bec au se the re ne w al co ntr acts, whos e t er m s were en gi ne er ed by Cant re l l , pos t dat ed hi s hi ri ng. checks had bee n deposi ted and m ai l ed bac k t o the o ffi ce, Tere s a r e pl a c e d Mi c ha e l ’ s n a me wi th tha to fa l e g i t i m ate payee. W hi l e O rsburn i n v o l v e d n o th i n gmo r e th a n e mbe zz l ement, we he l d tha t th e defen dan ts cou ld be c o nvicted un d e r 18 U
. S. C

. § 1341 bec au se th e ch ecks w ere m aile d

. Id. at5 45
. Butwe con cl ude d tha t appl y i ng U
. S. S. G. § 2 C1. 1 was er ro neous because the defen dants’ ac tu al c on d u c t d id n otinc lu d e b rib er y or an y c los ely re lat ed offe n se . Id. at54 6. I n contr ast, and as w e previ ousl y noted, C antr el l d i d not j ust ste al m oney f ro m N or th Tow nshi p. Rather, he used hi s po si ti o n a t N o r thTo wnshi p t o s te erc o nt r ac ts a nd re new al s t o a thi rd pa rt y, A FC, wh i ch co m pensated Cantrel l with pr oce eds fro m the contr acts
. Thi s i s a 3 kickbac k sch e m e un d er 18 U
. S. C

. § 1346 an d therefore c om es w ith in th e a m b it of U .S.S.G . § 2C 1.1
. See id

. ( ex pla i nin g th at § 1 346 w as not necess ar y t o the Or sburns’ c on vic ti o n bu t ra th er “w as d ev ise d to d ea l w ith p eo p le w ho t oo k c ash fro m t h ird p ar ti es ( vi a br ibes orki ckb ac ks )”). N o r di d Ca nt re l l mer el y f ai l t o di sc l o se a c o nfl i ct i ng fi nanci alintere st. Our co ncl usi on her e i s s up port ed by a di sc us si o n i n Sk illin g. There, the gov er nm ent a tte m pted to prese rv e the fullbr eadth o fthe honestse rv i ces6 N o. 09

- 1856

I n M c N a lly , the C our the l d t hatthe s c he m e ati s s ue di d not 4 qua l i fy a s m ai l fra ud b ec aus e § 1 34 1 was l i m i t ed t o the pr ot ec tion ofpr ope rty r i ght s . Cong re s s r es ponde d by e nac t i ng § 1 3 4 6 , whi c h ov e r r ul e d M c N a lly

. S eeSk i l l i ng, 2 0 1 0 WL 2518587, at *25. sta tute by ar gui ng tha t M cN a lly v. U nited Sta tes , 483 U .S. 350 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , wh i c h s pu r r e d C o ng r e s s t o e na c t§ 1 3 4 6, 4 pr i m ar i l y i nv o lved no ndi sc l o su r e o fa c o nfl i ct i ngfi na nci ali nter est
. The Ski l l i ng Court rej ecte d that a rgum ent, obs er vi ng tha t M cNallyact ual l y invol ved a “cl ass i c” ki ckba ck schem e: A pu bli c offici al, i n ex ch an ge for rout ing K en tu cky’s i nsura nce busi ness thro ugh a m i dd l em an co m pany, ar r an g ed f o r tha t co m pan y t o s ha r e its c o m m i ss i o ns w i th ent i ti es i n w hi ch the offici alhel d an i nter est
. This w as no m er e f ai l ure to disc l ose a conflict o f interest ; rather, the o ff icial consp ired w ith a third par tys o tha t bo thwoul d pr o fi t f r o m wealth g en er ate d by publ i c co ntra cts. Skil l i ng, 2 0 1 0 WL 2 5 1 8 5 8 7, a t * 2 8 ( c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d )

. The con d uc t h ere is an alogous to the d escrip tion of M cNally

. A ccor d in gl y, we fi nd no er ro r i n the appli cati on o f U
. S. S. G. § 2 C1. 1. Lastl y, we turn to C an trel l ’ s co m pla i nt thatthe dist ri ct j ud ge f ai l ed to co nsi der hi s a rgum ents f orl eni ency at sente nci ng. W hetherappropr i ate se ntenci ng pro cedures w er e f ol l owed i s a questi on o flaw subj ect to deno vo re vie w . U ni t ed State s v. M e ndoz a , 51 0 F
. 3d 749, 75 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. Pr o perpr o ce dures i nc l ude c al cul at i ngtheN o. 09

- 1856 7 g ui del i ne s r an g e, a na l y zingthe § 3 55 3( a) f ac to r s, b as i ng the s entence o n accur ate f acts , and expla i ni ng the r easo ni ng . U nite d State s v. O m ole, 523 F.3d 69 1, 697 (7th Cir. 2008 ). Cantrel l ar gues that the di str i ct j ud ge faile d to add re ss ce r ta i n f ac to r s he cited i n f av o r o fa b el o w-gui del i ne sente nce

— m ainly, his age and d e corate d m il itary career. Cantrel l ’ s a rgum ent r ega rdi ng hi s a ge i s cu riou s, as th e d istri ct j ud ge ex p li citly con side red that f acto r: Ico nsi dered the gui del i nes in thi s case . Ifi nd i t t o be f ai r . I fa ny th i ng, I thoughto fa hi g he r s en te nc e, a nd Idi d not g o to the hi gherse ntence ordevi ate hi gher be ca us e o fyo urag e. I di d ta k e th ati nt o c o ns i der at i o n.

. . . Ial so conside re d befor e m aki ng thi s s entence th e li fe expec ta nc y o fi ndi vi dual s as g i ve n b y the [ actuar i al ] tabl es. T h e j ud ge al so m enti oned Cantre l l ’ s a ccom pli shm ents, noti ng tha t he “had a g oo d care eratthe U niv er si ty of M i c hi g a n, ” “ g o t[ hi m] s el fa do c t o r a t e de g r e e , ” “ mov e [ d] u p in t h e s c h oo l sys te m s,” “[w as ] a fair ly g o o d d ad d y,” and “ he l pe d i nd i v i du a l s . ” Al tho ugh the j ud g e di d no t speci fi cal l y r efer ence Can tr ell’ s m i l i tar y c ar eer, thi s was not r e qu i r e d. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Paige, ___ F
. 3d ___, 20 10 W L 26524 55, at* 1 ( 7th Ci r. J uly6, 20 10) ( col l ectin g cases su p p orting th e prop ositi on th at “w e regularly af fi rm se n te n c es w h er e t h e d ist ric t jud ge d oe s n otex p licit ly m en ti o n e ac h mi ti g at i o n a r g um en t r ai se d b y the de fen d an t”). T h e d ist ric t j u d ge w as re q u ire d , h ow ev er , t o ex p lain w hy the s e n t e n ce w as ap p rop riate i n li gh t of C an trell ’s8 N o. 09

- 1856 argu m en ts. A nd that h e d id. Th e j ud ge rej ecte d Ca nt rell ’s a r g u me n t th a t h e wa s a g o o d f a th e r n o t i n g th a t he put hi s ch i l dr eni n h ar m ’s w ayb y fr au dul en tl y pr o cur i ng heal th i nsurance on thei r behal f

. The j ud ge w as al so bothere d b y th e l ength ofti m e ( about si x yea rs ) that Can tr el l was i nv o l ve d i n c r i m i na l a ct i vi ty
. And the j ud ge note d that Cantr el l ’ s cut f ro m A FC ( $6 8, 000) was sig n ifica n t a n d co u ld h av e b ee n u se d by th e t ow n sh ip to hel p the poo r. Final l y, the j ud ge ex pla i ned that al th o ug h Ca nt r el l h el ped se ve r ali ndi vi dual s th r o ug hout hi s l i f e , i t a pp e a r e d tha t, i n man y c a s e s , he di d s o to furtherhi s ow n i nter est s. Thus, ther e i s no ev i dence that the di str i ct j ud ge com m i tte d p ro c ed uraler ro r or o th er w ise ac te d unr ea so nabl y i n i m po singa wi th i ngui del i ne se ntence. For th ese r eason s, th e j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct cou rt i s A FFI RMED .

8- 11- 10