United States of America v. Angelita Newton

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued April 9, 2025
Decided April 10, 2025
Before
F RANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. K IRSCH II, Circuit Judge
C ANDACE JACKSON -A KIWUMI , Circuit Judge
No. 24-2048
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
A NGELITA NEWTON ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:17-CR-455-3
Virginia M. Kendall,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Angelita Newton was convicted for her role in a scheme to defraud Medicare.
Her original sentence of 56 months was vacated after we concluded that the evidence
did not support the district court’s finding that Newton is responsible for a loss of about
$6.3 million. United States v. Newton, 76 F.4th 662 (7th Cir. 2023). On remand the district
court recalculated the loss as approximately $1.2 million and sentenced Newton to 39
months’ imprisonment plus one year’s supervised release. Newton has been in custody
since her original sentencing and has completed the reduced sentence, plus all but two
months of her supervised release. She asks us to hold that even the reduced sentence is
excessive, and the United States has confessed error.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-2048 Page 2
At the resentencing the district judge initially believed that Newton is
accountable for approximately $2 million of loss. Under the table in U.S.S.G.
§2B1.1(b)(1), that added 16 levels to her offense score. Later in the hearing, however, the
judge revised the loss to roughly $1.2 million. Unfortunately, the judge did not
recognize that this reduced to 14 the number of added levels. Nor did anyone else.
Prosecutor, defense counsel, and probation office all let this matter pass in silence. But
the United States properly concedes on appeal that this oversight constitutes plain
error.
The correctly calculated guideline range for Newton is 37 to 46 months, and her
sentence lies within that range. But, each time she has sentenced Newton, the district
judge has selected a punishment lower than the low point in the range. It is essential to
start with a correctly calculated range, so that the anchor for variance is correct.
Newton was released from prison after completing her custodial sentence, but a
decision in her favor on remand still could help her. If, say, the judge were to reduce her
sentence to 37 months, then her term of supervised release—one year from the end of
the custodial sentence—would conclude immediately. The prospect of such a benefit
suffices to avoid mootness or a conclusion that the error necessarily is harmless.
Newton presents a second claim of error. The district court ordered her to pay
$80,000 in restitution. See 18 U.S.C. §3663A. The judge concluded that Newton had
received approximately $80,000 in salary during the time she worked for Care
Specialists, Inc., and ordered her to pay that amount. The problem here is that
restitution must be based on victims’ loss and not on perpetrators’ gains. E.g., United
States v. George, 403 F.3d 470, 474 (7th Cir. 2005). The United States has confessed error
on this issue too.
We find it hard to see how the error injured Newton. The district judge found
Newton responsible for approximately $1.2 million of Medicare’s loss, about 15 times
the $80,000 that Newton has been ordered to pay. We asked her lawyer at argument
whether Newton understands the risk that the restitution award could increase.
Counsel said that Newton does understand but believes that the prosecutor will be
unable to show loss in a greater amount, so that the award likely will fall. We are not in
a position to gainsay Newton’s choice, so we remand with instructions to recalculate the
award of restitution.
Newton asks us to send this case to a different district judge on remand. We do
not see any reason to do so and are confident that the district judge will approach
Newton’s third sentencing with an open mind.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2048 Page 3
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this order. The mandate will issue today.

-- 3 of 3 --