By: Derek Hawkins//July 26, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Christopher Eberts
Case No.: 15-2596
Officials: BAUER, MANION, and KANNE, Circuit Judges
Focus: Sentencing
Court did not ignore sentencing factors, the basis of court’s decision based on sound facts and ample evidence was present to support the imposed sentence
“Eberts next argues that the district court failed to consider his arguments in mitigation. First, he faults the court for not acknowledging that he faces removal to Canada upon his re‐ lease from prison. But the judge was not required to specifically address Eberts’s undeveloped contention that he had pleaded guilty in spite of his likely removal; while a district court may consider a defendant’s immigration status, it need not explicitly discuss a stock argument like the painful consequences of removal. See United States v. Mendoza, 576 F.3d 711, 721–22 (7th Cir. 2009). Second, Eberts faults the court for failing to recognize that the $400,000 he paid Elliott in restitution before pleading guilty represented an “extraordinary acceptance of responsibility.” But, as explained by the district court, Eberts’s payment was not even voluntary, let alone extraordinary—he waited to settle the civil suit with Elliott until just days before he pleaded guilty, three years after he had been ordered to pay over $1 million. See United States v. Grasser, 312 F.3d 336, 340 (7th Cir. 2002) (concluding that defendant who, on day of sentencing, pledged 42% of amount owed to plaintiff in civil suit did nothing extraordinary). And the judge did take this payment into consideration by ordering Eberts to pay restitution of only $178,500, the sum left over after $400,000 was subtracted from the total loss amount.”
Affirmed