United States v. McClellan
| Decision Date | 21 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–2449.,14–2449. |
| Citation | 794 F.3d 743 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Michael B. McCLELLAN, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Jennifer S. Chang–Adiga, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Scott L. King, Scott King Group, Merrillville, IN, for Defendant–Appellant.
Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.
After a jury trial, Michael McClellan was found guilty of one count of harboring an illegal alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) ; three counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 ; and one count of engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Because we believe that the evidence presented to the jury was a sufficient basis on which to rest its verdicts, and because we believe that the jury instructions on the harboring count did not constitute plain error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Mr. McClellan and his wife, Tina, operated T & M Daycare (“T & M”) in Calumet City, Illinois. Nearly all of the families at T & M participated in an Illinois state child-care initiative, which reimbursed daycare centers for care provided to children of eligible families. In order to qualify, the child's parent or guardian had to reside in Illinois, be employed or attend school, and have an income below a specified amount.
Fransis Lopez was hired at T & M in February 2006. At first she had limited contact with Mr. McClellan and Tina. Later, the McClellans promoted Lopez to director; to do so, they had to falsify records to make it appear that she met qualifications dictated by state regulations. Once she became director, she had frequent contact with Mr. McClellan and Tina, both in person and over the phone.
Mr. McClellan and Tina instructed Lopez that, when new families came to the daycare for services, Lopez should falsify applications so that T & M could receive reimbursements from the State. There were also times when the McClellans told Lopez to leave the applications blank so that they could write in the necessary information to obtain reimbursement.
Many of the children who attended T & M also qualified for meals through a state “Healthy Start” program.1 T & M received reimbursement from the State of Illinois when a qualifying child was provided a meal. Sabrina Sanchez, a former director of T & M, testified that she would record accurately the children in attendance who had eaten meals. She witnessed Mr. McClellan change those numbers on the sheets, which he then submitted to the State for reimbursement. She also noticed that the Healthy Start records contained names of children who did not attend the daycare. When she raised the issue with the McClellans, she was told that the children were on the list because “they may come [to the daycare].”2 After Lopez took over as director, she would record that children had eaten a meal, when in fact they had not; she did so at the McClellans' instruction.
Testimony from several mothers established that their application forms for T & M had been altered to contain false information, that T & M had sought reimbursement from the State beyond the time their children attended T & M, or that T & M had sought reimbursement from the State when, in fact, their children never actually had enrolled in the daycare.
In 2008, Mr. McClellan purchased The Paragon restaurant in Schererville, Indiana. Unbeknownst to Mr. McClellan, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) had been investigating The Paragon and its former owners, Louis and Chris Gerodemos, based on information that illegal aliens were working there and living in a house across the street on St. John Road. As part of its investigation, the DHS arrested The Paragon manager Horacio Bastida. Bastida agreed to provide assistance to the Government by recording conversations with Mr. McClellan and also by providing the DHS with documentary evidence that Mr. McClellan was paying part of his employees' wages in cash and was not reporting those wages to the State of Indiana.
In 2008, Mr. McClellan and Tina also signed a purchase agreement for the St. John Road house. When the closing took place, the bulk of the purchase amount was wired from T & M's account. Several members of The Paragon's undocumented kitchen staff lived in the house rent-free. Mr. McClellan paid the utilities for the house and also provided food to these employees.
On July 2, 2009, Bastida recorded a conversation with Mr. McClellan in which he raised the issue of the illegal status of “the guys in the back” of the restaurant.3 During the conversation, Mr. McClellan stated that he had not been aware of Bastida's illegal status, but he did “kn[o]w about the other guys.”4
A subsequent recording on August 12, 2009, captured a meeting between Mr. McClellan and his kitchen staff. Mr. McClellan believed that the employees in the back of the restaurant should be doing a better job because they were receiving free rent, utilities, and food.5 A conversation between Mr. McClellan and Bastida that same day revealed that Mr. McClellan was told that “the guys in back” had “fake” social security numbers, that Mr. McClellan told Bastida that it was “fine” for those employees to use their fake numbers, and that Mr. McClellan did not want “the guys in the back to punch in no longer” using the electronic system because “a record is produced” and he did not want a paper trail.6
On March 24, 2010, law enforcement agents executed a search warrant at The Paragon, the McClellans' residence, and the house on St. John Road. There were eight employees in the restaurant that were working without legal status; four other individuals without legal status were found in the St. John Road house.
A grand jury returned a five-count indictment against Mr. McClellan: Count 1 charged Mr. McClellan with harboring five illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), based on his employment of those aliens and his providing them with housing at the St. John Road house; Counts 2 through 4 charged Mr. McClellan with mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based on his submission of fraudulent quarterly employment tax reports from October 2009, January 2010, and April 2010; and Count 5 charged Mr. McClellan and Tina with engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, based on the transfer of funds from the T & M account for the purchase of the St. John Road house.
The case was tried before a jury, which was given the following instruction with respect to the elements of Count 1:
Mr. McClellan did not interpose any objection to this instruction. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all five counts, and the court subsequently sentenced Mr. McClellan to a term of fifty-one months on each of the five counts, to be served concurrently. Mr. McClellan timely appealed.8
On appeal, Mr. McClellan contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on any of the counts of the indictment and that the district court instructed the jury improperly with respect to Count 1. We turn first to the question of the sufficiency of the evidence.
Mr. McClellan first submits that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of any of the counts of the indictment. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we will reverse only where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the record demonstrates that no reasonable jury could have found all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., United States v. Vaughn, 585 F.3d 1024, 1028 (7th Cir.2009).
With respect to Count 1 of the indictment for harboring under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), Mr. McClellan first submits that “the government did not prove that [he] knew that any one of the listed and alleged illegal aliens in Count One were, in fact, illegal aliens or, with respect to the property at 1747 St. John St., a resident there.”9 The record establishes, however, that Francisco Jacobo–Ortiz, one of the aliens whom Mr. McClellan was accused of harboring in Count 1, worked in the kitchen at The Paragon for three years.10 Moreover, in the recorded conversations between Mr. McClellan and Bastida, Mr. McClellan acknowledged on several occasions that he knew that the employees “in the back” of the restaurant, i.e., the kitchen area as opposed to the dining room, were illegal.11 Indeed, in one recorded conversation with Bastida, Mr. McClellan stated that he had been unaware of Bastida's lack of documentation, but he “knew about the other guys.”12 Finally, Bastida testified that Jacobo–Ortiz was one of the employees present at the meeting with Mr. McClellan in which Mr. McClellan voiced frustration with the employees in the back of the restaurant because, he believed, they should be working harder in light of the fact that they were receiving free rent, utilities, and food.13 From this evidence, therefore, a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. McClellan both knew of the illegal status of Jacobo–Ortiz and knew that he was living at the St. John Road house rent-free.
Mr. McClellan also argues that our recent decision in United States v. Costello, 666 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir.2012), clarified ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Grayson Enters., Inc.
...to live with her, so she was not "harboring" within the meaning of the statute. Id.We applied this hypothetical in United States v. McClellan , 794 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2015). McClellan ran a restaurant that had several unauthorized alien employees who lived rent-free in a house he owned acro......
-
Gire v. United States
...of the defendants in United States v. McLellan, 794 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2015) and United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2014). In McLellan, Seventh Circuit held that harboring requires “inten[t] to safeguard th[e] alien from the authorities, ” rather than “simply providing housin......
-
United States v. Thomas, 18-1356
...of jury instructions de novo , while deferring to a district court’s discretion in the specific phrasing. See United States v. McClellan , 794 F.3d 743, 753 (7th Cir. 2015). But when a defendant fails to object to a potential evidentiary error or jury instruction in the district court, thes......
-
United States v. Lawson
...of Rosemond When a defendant did not object to a jury instruction at trial, we review only for plain error. United States v. McClellan, 794 F.3d 743, 753–54 (7th Cir.2015). "In order to reverse for plain error, we must find (1) error (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects the defendant's s......
-
Mail and Wire Fraud
...intent to defraud”); United States v. Diamond, 851 F. App’x 14 (9th Cir. 2021) (same for mail fraud). 38. United States v. McClellan, 794 F.3d 743, 752 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773, 786 (7th Cir. 2006). 39. See United States v. Regent Off. Supply Co., 421 F.......