Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard E. WARREN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-22
Citations: 325 F. App'x 459
Docket Number: No. 08-2058
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard E. WARREN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard E. WARREN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-2058.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted May 21, 2009.
Decided May 22, 2009.
Jacqueline O. Stern, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard E. Warren, Bennettsville, SC, pro se.
Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge and DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge.
After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Richard Warren used a classic Ponzi scheme in trying to defraud a hedge fund out of $25 million. The fund manager jumped at the chance to earn a return of 80 to 100 percent in a few weeks by investing in what Warren described as a no-risk program overseen by the Federal Reserve. The fund got its money back only after federal investigators intervened. Eventually a jury found Warren guilty on 11 counts of wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and the district court sentenced him to a total of 200 months in prison. Warren, who is pro se, argues in this direct appeal that the district court lacked both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction because he is a "citizen of GOD's Kingdom and not of Earth." He made the same frivolous argument 42 times in papers filed in the district court, to no avail. District courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over any indictment charging a federal crime, 18 U.S.C. § 3231; United States v. Roberts, 534 F.3d 560, 568 (7th Cir.2008); United States v. Hernandez, 330 F.3d 964, 977-78 (7th Cir.2003), as well as personal jurisdiction over any defendant brought before the court to answer an indictment, United States v. Burke, 425 F.3d 400, 408 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Jones, 983 F.2d 1425, 1428 n. 6 (7th Cir.1993). And since Warren raises no other challenge to his convictions or sentence, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.