The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-1662•United States of America v. MICHAEL BERKLEY and VAL JEAN HILLMAN
02-1662Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitJul 16, 2003
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
July 16, 2003
Before
Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
Nos. 02-1662 & 02-1949
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BERKLEY and
VAL JEAN HILLMAN,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 00 CR 31
Charles R. Norgle, Sr., Judge.
ON REHEARING
Michael Berkley’s motion to correct our opinion of June 20, 2003, is GRANTED. Accordingly, the
fourth paragraph of the opinion is amended to read:
Hillman and Michael Berkley, a loan processor for UMG, were charged along
with six others in a seven-count indictment. After their six cohorts pleaded guilty,
Hillman and Berkley went to trial. A jury found Hillman guilty on three counts of
wire fraud affecting a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343.
The jury also found Berkley guilty on one of two similar counts. The district court
sentenced both men to 27 months imprisonment and ordered them to pay hundreds
of thousands of dollars in restitution. Hillman and Berkley appeal their convictions,
essentially challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Because Hillman failed to
lodge a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence or within
7 days after the adverse verdict, he must show plain error to prevail. See United
States v. Taylor, 226 F.3d 593, 596 (7th Cir. 2000). Therefore, we will reverse his
conviction only if we find a manifest miscarriage of justice. Berkley’s conviction is
subject to the usual standard of review. We will reverse his conviction only if “the
record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, upon which a rational
trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Starks, 309
F.3d 1017, 1021 (7th Cir. 2002).
With the granting of this motion, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
-- 1 of 1 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.