In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No.152596
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,
PlaintiffAppellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHEREBERTS,
DefendantAppellant.
____________________
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe
CentralDistrictofIllinois.
No.1310070001JoeBillyMcDade,Judge.

____________________
ARGUEDJUNE8,2016DECIDEDJULY22,2016
____________________
BeforeBAUER,MANION,andKANNE,CircuitJudges.
PER CURIAM. Christopher Eberts, a Canadian citizen and
U.S. permanent resident, is a film producer whose notable
credits include Lord of War (2005) and Lucky Number Slevin
(2006).Butafterproducingastringoffailedmovies,in2009
he filed for bankruptcy. He also convinced a novice author
fromIllinoistowire himover$600,000sothatEbertscould
adapthisbookintoamovie.Ebertsinsteadusedthatmoney
tobuylavishpersonalitems,andhisactionsledtocriminal

No.152596

charges. He pleaded guilty to seven counts of wire fraud,

see18U.S.C. 1343, and three counts of money laundering,
seeid.1957,andhewassentencedto46monthsimprison
ment.Hearguesthatthedistrictcourtfailedtoconsiderthe
18U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors or Ebertss mitigation
arguments and instead based the sentence on unsupported
facts.Wedisagreeandaffirmthejudgment.

I.BACKGROUND
AroundthetimethatEbertsfiledforbankruptcyinCali
fornia,hewasintroducedbyamutualacquaintancetoIllinois
residentJeffElliott.Elliottwasinterestedin adaptingintoa
movieabookhehadwrittenseveralyearsearlierabouthis
sonsrecoveryfromabraintumor.EbertsandElliottformed
alimitedliabilitycompanyinApril2009.Bothmenagreedto
investmoneytowardproducingthemovie,butEbertsdidnot
disclosehisinsolvency.OverthenextyearElliottwiredabout
$615,000toaccountscontrolledbyEberts.Ebertsappliedonly
10%ofthatmoneytowardthemovie;hepaidhisfatherand
bankruptcyattorneythousandsofdollarsandspenttherest
on personal items likeart,furniture,designerclothing,cus
tom shoes, luxury watches, cosmetic medicine, and fine
wines.Ebertsalsosolicitedandreceiveda$25,000loanfrom
Elliottforanunrelatedprojectandneverrepaidit.
After Elliott discovered the scam in December2010, he
severed ties with Eberts and sued him for fraud in federal
court.1Ebertsdidnotappearforthebenchtrialinthatcivil

1Elliottlaterfoundotherproducersforthemovie,whichwasreleasedin

January 2015. SeeHoovey, IMDB, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2828884/

(lastvisitedJuly20,2016).

No.152596

suit, and the district court ordered him to pay Elliott over
$1millionincompensatoryandpunitivedamages.SeeElliott
v. Eberts, No.111163 (C.D.Ill. May22, 2012). Almost three
yearslaterEberts(viahismother)paidElliott$400,000,and
Elliottagreedtoforgotheremainingbalance.
InthemeantimeEbertswaschargedwithsevencountsof
wire fraud (for seven wire transfers from Elliott to Eberts),
see18U.S.C. 1343, and three counts of money laundering
(forEbertsswiretransferstoanartgallery,hisfather,andhis
bankruptcyattorney),seeid.1957.Thedistrictcourtreleased
himonbondbutrevokedthebondafterEbertstestedpositive
forcocaineandopiateuse,failedtodiscloseanOctober2014
state forgery conviction, and solicited $250,000 from an un
dercoverFBIagentbypitchinganunrealisticbusinessinvest
ment.AcoupleofweeksafterEbertshadpaidElliottinthe
civilsuit,hepleadedguiltywithoutapleaagreementtoall
tencountsofwirefraudandmoneylaundering.
Aprobationofficercalculatedaguidelinesrangeof37to
46monthsimprisonment.Thetotallossamountof$578,500
resultedinEbertssbaseoffenselevelbeingincreasedby14,
seeU.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1)(H), and his total offense level thus
was21withacriminalhistorycategoryofI. Ebertsinitially
objected to the loss calculation and the denial of an adjust
ment for acceptance of responsibility. But at the sentencing
hearing, he withdrew those objections and instead argued
thathedeservedabelowguidelinessentencebecausehehad
demonstrated an extraordinary acceptance of responsibil
itybasedonhiswillingnesstopleadguilty,the$400,000he
hadpaidElliottinthecivilsuit,andthelikelihoodofhisre
movaltoCanadaafterservinghissentence.

No.152596

ElliottandEbertsbothtestifiedatthesentencinghearing.
ElliottdescribedhowEbertsrepeatedlyliedtohim,stolefrom
him, and put his family through a great deal of pain while
EbertswasoffhavingagoodtimepartyinginGreece,Spain,
[and]St.Barts.Forhispart,EbertsapologizedtoElliottand
hisfamilyanddeclaredthathehadbeenoverwhelmedby
feelings of remorse, guilt, sadness, [and] fear. He insisted
thathisintentionsgoingintotheprojecttobeginwithwere
all good but that he had gotten sidetracked to a certain
pointforavarietyofreasons.
ThedistrictjudgesentencedEbertsto46monthsimpris
onmentthetopoftheguidelinesrangeand3yearssuper
visedrelease,andorderedhimtopay$178,500inrestitution.
ThejudgesuspectedthatEbertssawanopportunitytocapi
talizeonsomeonesvulnerabilitytomakesomemoneywhen
he approached Elliott about making the movie. Eberts had
beenlivingafastandglamorousHollywoodlifestyle,the
judgesaid,andhadusedhispowerofpersuasiontosella
conjobtoElliotteventhoughEbertsneverhadanyinten
tionsofmakingthatmovie.Thejudgeacknowledgedthathe
couldbewrongaboutthatbutemphasizedthatEbertshad
spent only about $61,000 on producing the movie while
spendinghundredsofthousandsofdollarsonluxuryitems
forhimself.ThejudgealsonotedthatEbertssactionswhile
released on bondincluding fraudulently soliciting money
from an undercover FBI agentshowed that he was not
trustworthy. There existed a substantial likelihood that
Eberts would commit additional crimes because, the judge
continued,Idontthinkthereisanythingelseyouknowhow
todo.ThejudgealsorejectedEbertssrequestforalowersen
tence based on acceptance of responsibility, explaining that
the$400,000paymentwasnotvoluntaryitmerelywasa

No.152596

settlementandagoodbusinessdealinacivilcasewhere
Ebertsowedover$1million.Finally,thejudgeexpressedhis
desiretocommunicatetoEbertsandothersthinkingofcom
mitting similar crimes that they cannot take advantage of
vulnerablepeoplelikethat.

II.ANALYSIS
On appeal Eberts challenges his withinguidelines sen
tence.Hefirstarguesthatthedistrictcourtprocedurallyerred
becauseitdidnotspecificallyaddressthe3553(a)factors
andinsteadforcedthepartiestoascribesomeconnectionim
plicitly.Butadistrictjudgeneednotexplicitlymentioneach
(orany)ofthe3553(a)factors,solongasthejudgesreason
ing is consistent with the applicable sentencing factors.
SeeUnitedStates v. Leiva, 821F.3d 808, 822 (7thCir. 2016);
UnitedStates v. Washington, 739F.3d 1080, 108182 (7thCir.
2014).Thedistrictjudgesreasoningeasilysatisfiesthatstand
ard:thejudgeconsideredthenatureandcircumstancesofthe
offense(highlightingthatEbertstookadvantageofElliottby
selling him a con job to maintain his glamorous and
fastlifestyle),Ebertsshistoryandcharacteristics(stressing
thathecontinuedhisfraudulentbehaviorwhileoutonbond),
the need to protect the community (finding a substantial
likelihoodthatEbertswouldreoffend),andtheneedtopro
moterespectforthelawandprovidejustpunishment(noting
thatthesentenceshouldconveytoEbertsandanyonethink
ing of committing similar crimes that they cant take ad
vantageofvulnerablepeoplelikethat).
Ebertsnextarguesthatthedistrictcourtfailedtoconsider
hisargumentsinmitigation.First,hefaultsthecourtfornot

No.152596

acknowledgingthathefacesremovaltoCanadauponhisre
leasefromprison.Butthejudgewasnotrequiredtospecifi
cally address Ebertss undeveloped contention that he had
pleadedguiltyinspiteofhislikelyremoval;whileadistrict
courtmayconsideradefendantsimmigrationstatus,itneed
notexplicitlydiscussastockargumentlikethepainfulconse
quencesofremoval.SeeUnitedStatesv.Mendoza,576F.3d711,
72122(7thCir.2009).Second,Ebertsfaultsthecourtforfail
ingtorecognizethatthe$400,000hepaidElliottinrestitution
before pleading guilty represented an extraordinary ac
ceptance of responsibility. But, as explained by the district
court,Ebertsspaymentwasnotevenvoluntary,letaloneex
traordinaryhewaitedtosettlethecivilsuitwithElliottuntil
just days before he pleaded guilty, three years after he had
been ordered to pay over $1million. SeeUnitedStates v.
Grasser,312F.3d336,340(7thCir.2002)(concludingthatde
fendantwho,ondayofsentencing,pledged42%ofamount
owedtoplaintiffincivilsuitdidnothingextraordinary).And
thejudgedidtakethispaymentintoconsiderationbyorder
ingEbertstopayrestitutionofonly$178,500,thesumleftover
after$400,000wassubtractedfromthetotallossamount.
Finally,Ebertsarguesthatthedistrictcourtbaseditssen
tence on unsupported information. In his view, the court
incorrectlyfound,forinstance,thathehadapproachedElliott
aboutmakingthemovieandthatheneverintendedtomake
themovie.ButElliotttoldthecourtthatEbertsandtheirmu
tualacquaintancehadraisedthemovieideawithhim,andthe
court was entitled to credit that characterization.
SeeUnitedStates v. Harris, 791F.3d 772, 779 (7thCir. 2015).
Moreover,Ebertspleadedguiltytowirefraud,whichrequires
a specific intent to defraud, seeUnitedStates v. Weimert,
819F.3d351,355(7thCir.2016),andheacknowledgedthathe

No.152596

hadmisrepresented[his]actionstoElliottandspentonly
10% of Elliotts money on the movie. There was ample evi
dencetosupportthesentenceimposedbythedistrictcourt.
AFFIRMED.