By: Derek Hawkins//October 11, 2021//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Lloyd Robi
Case No.: 20-1790
Officials: RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Court Error – Restitution
Lloyd Robl, working as an unlicensed and uninsured asbestos abatement contractor, undertook asbestos removal and disposal services for clients in Minnesota and Wisconsin. After a grand jury returned a seventeen-count indictment against Mr. Robl, he entered into a plea agreement. He pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for falsely holding himself out as a licensed and insured asbestos abatement contractor as part of a larger scheme to defraud customers. He also pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly releasing asbestos into the ambient air by burning asbestos-containing material in burn piles and in burn barrels at his home. The district court sentenced Mr. Robl to a total of 144 months’ imprisonment and entered its judgment on September 16, 2019. In doing so, it noted that it had not yet determined a restitution amount and set a restitution hearing.
At Mr. Robl’s request, the district court cancelled the initial restitution hearing until after the disposition of his then-pending direct appeal. Mr. Robl later moved to dismiss his initial appeal with prejudice, and we granted that motion. The district court then set a new restitution hearing. However, after a telephonic status hearing, at which Mr. Robl was not present but was represented by counsel, the restitution hearing was again cancelled, and the district court subsequently entered restitution in the amount of $94,031.41.
Mr. Robl now appeals that restitution order. He first challenges the district court’s jurisdiction to enter restitution. He further challenges the district court’s award of $94,031.41 and contends that the district court denied him his rights to be present and to speak as guaranteed by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 43(a) and 32(i)(4).
We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to enter the restitution order and that it committed no error in the course of adjudicating the amount of restitution. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
Affirmed