The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has granted a petition for panel rehearing filed by defendants Tonya Robinson and Albert Smith, reversing their bank fraud convictions and directing the Northern District of Indiana to enter judgments of acquittal. The court's January 28, 2026 order clarifies its December 15, 2025 opinion in case numbers 24-1910 and 24-2310.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, Ilana Diamond Rovner, and Michael Y. Scudder, issued the order following Robinson and Smith's petition for panel rehearing. The defendants had requested that the appeals court amend its remand instructions to clarify that the district court should enter a judgment of acquittal on their bank fraud convictions and enter an amended judgment.
According to the order, the petition was granted, and the court added specific language to page nine of its original opinion: "For these reasons, we reverse Robinson and Smith's bank fraud convictions and direct the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal and to amend its judgment consistent with this opinion."
The case originated from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, under case number 3:21-cr-00064-JD-MGG, with Judge Jon E. DeGuilio presiding. The appeals court's order reveals that the case involved multiple counts, including both bank fraud and wire fraud charges.
The Seventh Circuit's final instructions to the district court demonstrate the complexity of the case and the specific nature of the appellate review. The court reversed the bank fraud convictions on Counts 2 through 7 and directed the district court to enter judgments of acquittal on these counts and to amend its judgment consistent with the appeals court's opinion.
However, the wire fraud conviction on Count 8 was affirmed, meaning that portion of the defendants' convictions will stand. The court also affirmed the district court's use of an abuse-of-trust enhancement when sentencing Smith, indicating that this sentencing factor was properly applied in his case.
The appeals court also addressed restitution issues specific to Robinson. The court clarified on page 15 of its opinion that a limited remand applied only "on this particular issue," referring to Robinson's restitution. The court remanded the case to allow the district court to clarify the joint and several nature of Robinson's restitution obligation.
In its comprehensive summary of instructions to the district court, the Seventh Circuit outlined four specific directives. First, it reversed the bank fraud convictions on Counts 2-7 and directed entry of judgments of acquittal on these counts with an amended judgment consistent with the opinion. Second, it affirmed the wire fraud conviction on Count 8. Third, it affirmed the district court's use of the abuse-of-trust enhancement in Smith's sentencing. Finally, it remanded to allow clarification of the joint and several nature of Robinson's restitution.
The order represents a significant victory for Robinson and Smith on the bank fraud charges, as judgments of acquittal are final determinations that these specific charges cannot be retried. The reversal of bank fraud convictions while affirming wire fraud charges suggests the appeals court found distinct legal or factual differences between how these related but separate federal crimes were proven at trial.
The case illustrates the importance of precise appellate procedures and the willingness of federal appeals courts to clarify their instructions when petitioned by parties. The defendants' successful petition for panel rehearing resulted in more explicit directions to the district court, ensuring clear implementation of the appellate court's decision.
For Robinson, the remand regarding restitution suggests ongoing financial obligations that require further district court proceedings. The joint and several nature of restitution means multiple defendants can be held responsible for the full amount of losses, and the district court must clarify how this applies to Robinson's specific circumstances.
The abuse-of-trust enhancement that was affirmed for Smith indicates he held a position that allowed him to commit the crimes more easily due to his role or relationship with victims. This enhancement typically results in increased sentencing guidelines ranges and reflects the court's view that Smith violated a special position of trust.
The timing of the original December 15, 2025 opinion and the January 28, 2026 clarifying order demonstrates the relatively quick turnaround time for panel rehearing petitions in the Seventh Circuit. Such petitions are typically granted only when there are errors in the original opinion or when clarification is necessary for proper implementation.
This case underscores the distinct elements required for federal bank fraud versus wire fraud prosecutions and the importance of precise appellate court instructions to ensure proper implementation of appellate decisions at the district court level.