707 Fed.Appx. 414 (7th Cir. 2018), 16-4191, Sullivan v. United States

Docket Nº:16-4191
Citation:707 Fed.Appx. 414
Party Name:John J. SULLIVAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Attorney:Peter W. Henderson, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Urbana, IL, Thomas W. Patton, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Petitioner-Appellant Stuart D. Fullerton, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Respondent-Appellee
Judge Panel:Before William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge, Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge
Case Date:January 03, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 414

707 Fed.Appx. 414 (7th Cir. 2018)

John J. SULLIVAN, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-4191

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

January 3, 2018

Submitted January 3, 2018 [*]

Editorial Note:

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 15 C 7521, Rubé n Castillo, Chief Judge .

Peter W. Henderson, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Urbana, IL, Thomas W. Patton, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Petitioner-Appellant

Stuart D. Fullerton, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Respondent-Appellee

Before William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge, Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge

ORDER

John Sullivan and his brother Daniel were convicted of wire fraud in connection with their jointly managed home-remodeling business. We affirmed their convictions, United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2014), and last month affirmed the district court’s order denying Daniel’s petition for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Sullivan v. United States, 877 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2017). John filed his own § 2255 petition, lost, and appeals. We affirm for the reasons given in Daniel’s case plus those below.

Daniel presented two issues, one concerning jury selection and the other concerning sentencing. John presents only an issue about sentencing. Both Sullivans contend that their lawyers furnished ineffective assistance by not gathering and presenting additional evidence that might have persuaded the district judge to reduce his estimate of in-tended loss below $400,000, which would have cut two offense levels from the Guidelines calculation. The district judge estimated loss at $750,000, which both Daniel and John contend is too high. Daniel lost because he did not produce evidence showing that a different strategy could have done better than counsels actual strategy, which consisted in challenging the prosecutors proof...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP