United States v. Berkley, Michael

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
July 16, 2003
Before
Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
Nos. 02-1662 & 02-1949
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States
Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
v. Eastern Division.
MICHAEL BERKLEY and No. 00 CR 31
VAL JEAN HILLMAN,
Defendants-Appellants. Charles R. Norgle, Sr., Judge.
ON REHEARING
Michael Berkley’s motion to correct our opinion of June 20, 2003, is GRANTED. Accordingly, the
fourth paragraph of the opinion is amended to read:
Hillman and Michael Berkley, a loan processor for UMG, were charged along
with six others in a seven-count indictment. After their six cohorts pleaded guilty,
Hillman and Berkley went to trial. A jury found Hillman guilty on three counts of
wire fraud affecting a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343.
The jury also found Berkley guilty on one of two similar counts. The district court
sentenced both men to 27 months imprisonment and ordered them to pay hundreds
of thousands of dollars in restitution. Hillman and Berkley appeal their convictions,
essentially challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Because Hillman failed to
lodge a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence or within
7 days after the adverse verdict, he must show plain error to prevail. See United
States v. Taylor, 226 F.3d 593, 596 (7th Cir. 2000). Therefore, we will reverse his
conviction only if we find a manifest miscarriage of justice. Berkley’s conviction is
subject to the usual standard of review. We will reverse his conviction only if “the
record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, upon which a rational
trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Starks, 309
F.3d 1017, 1021 (7th Cir. 2002).
With the granting of this motion, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.