Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Wire Fraud

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 24, 2023//

Wire Fraud

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 24, 2023//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Paula Hise

Case No.: 21-2935

Officials: Easterbrook, Rovner and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Wire Fraud

On August 20, 2020, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging Hise with two counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Hise was employed by the victim as an office manager and bookkeeper for his construction company for more than 12 years, and an investigation by the FBI revealed that Hise had embezzled over $1.5 million from that company. As part of that conduct, Hise obtained a fraudulent credit card in her name and the name of the business, and caused electronic transfers of funds from the business account to pay the balance on that credit card. Hise entered an open guilty plea to those charges and the district court sentenced her to 63 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release, to be served concurrently for each count. The court also ordered $200 in special assessments and $1,550,379.14 in restitution, subject to set-off amounts to be determined at a later hearing. The parties subsequently agreed to the set-off amount of $21,953.55, which reflected the proceeds of a Sheriff’s Sale, and a revised Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) was prepared with a restitution amount of $1,528,425.51 incorporating that set-off. The court then entered a judgment including that revised restitution amount.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A) and(C) in that it failed to ensure that Hise and her attorney had read and discussed the amended PSR and any addendum to it before imposing the sentence. Hise fails to identify any objection that could have been made to the revised PSR. She has not pointed to any aspect of the PSR that was incorrect or which could be subject to an objection. The court also rejected Hise’s argument that she was denied her right to be represented by counsel because her attorney failed to make any objection to the PSR and failed to appear at the final determination hearing regarding the imposition of the final restitution amount.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/17/23

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests