ILNews

7th Circuit affirms Lake County official's sentence

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Robert Cantrell’s 78-month sentence for various convictions, including using his position in public office for kickbacks.

Cantrell, once a public official of North Township in Lake County, was indicted and charged with using his position to secure contracts for Addiction and Family Care Inc, a counseling company owned by an acquaintance. He would steer contracts there and received proceeds from the contracts.

He was found guilty of honest services fraud, using his position in public office to steer contracts to a third party in exchange for kickbacks, insurance fraud and filing false income taxes. On appeal, he challenged his four convictions on the honest services fraud counts on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 is unconstitutionally vague.

Relying on United States Supreme Court cases decided while Cantrell’s case was on appeal, including Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. __ 2010 WL 2518587 (2010), the Circuit judges found Cantrell’s arrangement with Addiction and Family Care Inc. was clearly a kickback scheme, so Section 1346 applied to him.

Cantrell also challenged District Judge Rudy Lozano’s application of U.S.S.G. Section 2C1.1, claiming that Judge Lozano applied an incorrect guideline, and that he didn’t consider Cantrell’s arguments for leniency.

In United States of America v. Robert J. Cantrell, the Circuit judges reviewed his Section 2C1.1 argument for plain error, since he didn’t object to the guideline calculations at sentencing. Not only did Cantrell steal money from North Township, he used his position to steer contracts and was compensated for them. This is a kickback scheme under Section 1346 and therefore comes within the ambit of Section 2C1.1, wrote Judge Terence Evans.

The Circuit Court also found the District judge considered Cantrell’s arguments for leniency, including Cantrell’s age. Judge Lozano explained why the sentence was appropriate in light of Cantrell’s arguments, and there’s no evidence he committed procedural error or acted unreasonably in imposing a within-guideline sentence.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT