By: Derek Hawkins//March 23, 2020//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Grayson Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No.: 19-1367
Officials: BAUER, MANION, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Plea Colloquy
Grayson Enterprises, Inc., is a roofing company that does business under the trade name Gire Roofing. A grand jury indicted Grayson alongside its business’s namesake, Edwin Gire, on charges of visa fraud, harboring unauthorized aliens, and employing the same aliens.
On paper, though, Gire had no official relation to Grayson as a corporate entity—he was not a stockholder, officer, or even an employee of the corporation. He managed the roofing (Grayson’s sole business), as he had under the Gire Roofing name for more than twenty years. The corporate papers instead identified Grayson’s president and sole stockholder as Kimberly Young. Young—Gire’s girlfriend—incorporated and acted as president of the “new” company Grayson, after Gire’s previous roofing company went bankrupt. Gire, his retained counsel, and the government all nevertheless represented to the district court that Gire was Grayson’s president. The district court, thus, permitted Gire to plead guilty on his and Grayson’s behalf to three counts of employing unauthorized aliens and to waive his and Grayson’s rights to a jury trial on the remaining charges. Joint counsel also represented both defendants during a bench trial that resulted in their convictions on all charges and a finding that Grayson’s headquarters was forfeitable to the government because Gire had used the building to harbor aliens.
Despite obtaining separate counsel before sentencing, neither Grayson nor Young (who testified at trial) ever complained to the district court about Gire’s or prior counsel’s representations. Neither did Grayson object to the indictment, the plea colloquy, or the fact that the court found, without a separate hearing, that Grayson had used its headquarters to facilitate the harboring of unauthorized aliens. Nevertheless, Grayson now challenges all these matters, and more, on appeal. Grayson identifies some areas where this case could have gone more smoothly but no errors that warrant reversal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
Affirmed