ILNews

Durham files to appeal federal conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tim Durham officially has filed to appeal his conviction on fraud charges after being sentenced to 50 years in prison in late November.

Durham had 14 days to file for the appeal following the sentencing. The appeals notice appeared Monday morning on the electronic docket of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The 71-page notice does not list an argument for appeal. Durham’s lawyer, John Tompkins, did not immediately return phone calls from IBJ. The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.

The appeal will be heard by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Durham, 50, likely will spend the rest of his life behind bars after federal Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson sentenced Durham to 50 years for defrauding Ohio investors of $250 million.

A federal jury in June found Durham guilty on all 12 felony fraud charges stemming from the collapse of Fair Finance Co. in Akron, Ohio. Durham co-owned the firm with Jim Cochran, who received 25 years. Rick Snow, the company’s chief financial officer, received a 10-year sentence.

Cochran's lawyer, Joseph Cleary, told IBJ Monday morning that his client also has appealed his conviction, and the notice should appear on the federal docket soon. Rick Snow's lawyer could not be reached for comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT