Court Opinion

ID: 9482863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:03:17.803294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:15.485471
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and opinion of the court, and write separately only to clarify what I understand to be the court’s resolution of two issues.
First, with respect to our reversal on count five, I wish to emphasize that the government’s fundamental problem was not a lack of evidence that the underslung cabinets were improperly constructed, but a poorly drafted indictment. The final clause of count five, italicized in the opinion, focused the charge on the allegation that the cabinets were not constructed with the required 16-gauge steel. As the opinion notes, the court interpreted this clause as having such a limiting effect. In defense of count five, Mr. Langer introduced testimony from several witnesses that the cabinets were in fact constructed with the proper materials. Indeed, there was no evidence whatsoever that the cabinets were constructed of improper materials. Nevertheless, the jury found Mr. Langer guilty of count five, presumably because the government introduced evidence that the cabinets were defective in several other respects. Thus, the proof at trial varied materially from allegations in the indictment, as construed by the court and Mr. Langer. Mr. Langer thereby received insufficient notice of charges ultimately proved. This variance is fatal to the conviction on count five. Cf. Bae v. Peters, 950 F.2d 469, 479 (7th Cir.1991).
Second, with respect to the scope of the restitution order, I wish to emphasize that the scheme alleged in the indictment was broad enough to encompass misrepresentations that were not singled out as separate counts in the indictment, but specific *602enough to meet the requirements of United States v. Hughey, 495 U.S. 411, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990). As we stated in United States v. Bennett, 943 F.2d 738, 741 (7th Cir.1991), a scheme must be defined with specificity in order to support independently a restitution order: “The scheme concept is an amorphous one, and may only support an award of restitution if it is defined with specificity. A contrary rule would allow vague allegations to support restitution based upon broad, unsubstantiated conduct.” The district court was careful to limit the restitution order to repairs necessitated by the scheme alleged in the indictment. From the total cost of retrofitting the vehicles, the court deducted costs associated with the two-year delay in retrofitting, costs stemming from regulatory bidding requirements, and, as noted in footnote 3, the salvage value of galvanized steel parts used by Mr. Langer, which did not meet contract specifications. Finally, because the court did not include costs associated with the materials used in constructing the underslung cabinets, our reversal of the conviction on count five does not require a modification of the restitution order in that respect.