7th Circuit upholds $3M restitution order for copper theft

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a defendant’s argument that the court should go against its precedent that restitution is not a criminal penalty and that a recent U.S. Supreme Court holding means the jury should determine the amount of restitution he should pay for his role in copper theft.

Gregory Wolfe worked as a supervisor at Katoen Natie in Gary. The company packages and stores commodities including copper. Henry Bath LLC began storing its copper at the warehouse in early 2009. Wolfe and his stepfather, Gregory Harris, who was operations manager, began stealing sheets of copper and repackaging them to sell. This work was done before and after regular business hours.

An independent audit discovered the missing copper – approximately $2.9 million worth, totaling 390 metric tons. Harris and Wolfe were fired and charged with bank theft and interstate transportation of stolen goods. Wolfe argued at trial he had no knowledge of the theft scheme and was just following Harris’ orders. The government rebutted this defense with testimony by Wolfe’s sometimes girlfriend Ashby Gurgon.

Wolfe was convicted and sentenced to 88 months imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively, followed by three-year terms of supervised release. The court also ordered him to pay more than $3 million in restitution.

In United States of America v. Gregory Wolfe, 11-3281, Wolfe argued that he was deprived of a fair trial because of statements the prosecutor made during closing argument. He also challenged his sentence and the restitution order.

Reviewing under plain error, the 7th Circuit found the prosecutor made improper remarks by credibility vouching for Gurgon, but Wolfe was not prejudiced or denied a fair trial.  The prosecutor did misstate trial testimony by saying “all the other witnesses” identified Wolfe on video, but Wolfe was unable to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by that remark.

The judges affirmed the 18-level increase to Wolfe’s sentence because the government was able to show the victim’s loss was at least $2.5 million. He argued that the value of the copper stolen in 2010 was less than that amount and he was unaware of any theft in 2009.

The 7th Circuit also affirmed the restitution order, refusing to find that Southern Union Co. v. United States, U.S. 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012) requires the Circuit Court to overturn its longstanding jurisprudence that restitution is not a criminal penalty, and second, mandates that all restitution amounts be supported by the jury’s verdict, Judge William Bauer wrote. Southern Union and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), only come into consideration if the court concludes restitution is a criminal penalty. Bauer noted that the 7th Circuit is in the minority among circuits by not finding restitution is a criminal penalty.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well