United States of America v. Patrick D. Thompson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
O N R EMAND FROM THE S UPREME C OURT OF THE U NITED S TATES
Submitted April 22, 2025
Decided July 24, 2026
Before
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge*
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PATRICK D. THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 21-cr-00279-1
Franklin U. Valderrama,
Judge.
* Circuit Judge Flaum passed away on December 4, 2024. He did not participate
deciding this case on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, which is
being resolved under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) by a quorum of the panel.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-2254 Page 2
O R D E R
On January 8, 2024, we affirmed the district court’s denial of Thompson’s motion
for acquittal on two counts of making “false statement[s]” to the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 after a jury convicted him on
those counts. See generally United States v. Thompson, 89 F.4th 1010 (7th Cir. 2024). On
appeal, Thompson had argued the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the two
counts because it showed only that he made misleading statements and not literally
false statements. Id. at 1016–17. But our case law dictated affirmance. In United States v.
Freed, 921 F.3d 716, 723 (7th Cir. 2019), we held that § 1014 criminalized statements that
were misleading and not just statements that were literally false. And the evidence was
sufficient to support that Thompson had made at least misleading statements to the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, so we affirmed the district court’s denial of his
motion for acquittal on the two counts. Thompson, 89 F.4th at 1017–18.
Thompson petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of
certiorari to determine whether § 1014 criminalized misleading statements, and the
Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 4, 2024. Thompson v. United States, 145 S.
Ct. 116 (Mem) (2024). On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court held that § 1014 “does not
criminalize statements that are misleading but true.” Thompson v. United States, 604 U.S.
408, 418 (2025). Instead, under the statute, the statement “must be ‘false’” to sustain a
conviction. Id. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of this Court and
remanded for further proceedings.
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 54, the government asked that we evaluate the
sufficiency of the evidence with the aid of additional briefing to determine whether
Thompson’s statements were literally false and not merely misleading. Thompson, on
the other hand, “submits that the district court, which heard the evidence at trial, is best
positioned in the first instance to apply the appropriate legal standard to the facts, and
that this Court should remand the case to the district court to rule on” his motion. We
agree with Thompson. We value the insight of the district court on this issue given it
oversaw the evidence presented at trial in the first instance.
We thus VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND to the district
court for the Northern District of Illinois for further proceedings consistent with
Thompson v. United States, 604 U.S. 408 (2025).

-- 2 of 2 --