United States v. Thaddeus Bania , 562 F. App'x 528 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                          NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with
    Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted April 17, 2014*
    Decided April 18, 2014
    Before
    JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
    ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
    DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
    No. 13-3662
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                         Court for the Northern District of
    Illinois, Eastern Division.
    v.
    No. 07 CR 580-6
    THADDEUS BANIA,
    Defendant-Appellant.                         Charles P. Kocoras,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Thaddeus Bania appeals the denial of his motion for early termination of his
    supervised release under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e). We affirm.
    *
    After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
    unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.
    34(a)(2)(C).
    No. 13-3662                                                                           Page 2
    In May 2009 a jury found Bania and others guilty of conspiring to commit
    honest-services fraud by rigging a union election, see 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1341
    , 1346, and to
    embezzle labor union property, see 
    29 U.S.C. § 501
    (c). The district court sentenced Bania
    to 40 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by two years’ supervised release, and
    ordered him to pay $902,036 in restitution to the union. (All conspirators were jointly
    and severally liable for the restitution, and the amount contributed by Bania was to be
    credited against the $864,924 forfeiture also ordered in his case.) Bania did not appeal
    either his conviction or sentence.
    Bania completed his sentence and was released from prison in November 2012.
    Nearly eleven months later, while on supervised release, he moved for early
    termination of supervision under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e), based on his law-abiding behavior
    and compliance with the terms of supervision since his release from prison. The
    government opposed the motion, noting that Bania had paid less than $7500 of the
    ordered restitution (of which more than $635,000 still was outstanding), and that it had
    a policy of objecting to early termination of supervised release whenever a substantial
    financial obligation remains to be satisfied. The district court, in a minute order, denied
    Bania’s motion “[i]n light of [Bania’s] substantial outstanding financial obligation . . . .”
    On appeal Bania raises for the first time his lone argument—that the district
    court plainly erred in denying his motion because the court ordered restitution for
    intended rather than actual loss. But not only is Bania’s challenge to the underlying
    restitution order untimely because it was not made within fourteen days of the entry of
    judgment, see FED. R. APP. P. 4(b); United States v. Hook, 
    471 F.3d 766
    , 771 n.1 (7th Cir.
    2006), he also does not present us with any evidence to suggest that the district court
    erred, let alone plainly erred. The district court was statutorily bound to consider,
    among other things, the need to provide restitution to the victims, 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3583
    (e);
    3553(a)(7), and a conclusion that further supervision was needed to ensure repayments
    to Bania’s victims was not plain error.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-3662

Citation Numbers: 562 F. App'x 528

Judges: PerCuriam

Filed Date: 4/18/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024