Seventh Circuit: USA v. Aga Khan


No plain error in refusing acceptance of responsibility sentence mitigation, since deft only stipulated to the facts, rather than personally conceding the scope of the fraud, and the grand jury testimony transcripts that were the basis for the court's finding on the scope of fraud were provided to all parties, who could timely object.

Plain error in procedural sentencing error resulting on one of the concurrent terms of supervised relief being in excess of the statute, since a revocation proceeding would address all terms of supervised release.

Absent showing that victim bank intended to hold collateral real estate s investment, no error in not offsetting the restitution by the value of the unliquidated collateral; no obligation on the victim bank to notify parties of subsequent sale of the collateral.

Sentencing court's allocation of restitution to a certain percentage of deft's future income sufficiently considered deft's financial circumstances, as under the statute no such consideration is due when determining the total amount.
.
~