United States v. Gary Matthews & Monte Brannan
Seventh Circuit Establishes a “Zero-Tolerance” Regime for Circuit Rule 30 Non-Compliance in Criminal Appeals

I. Introduction

United States v. Gary Matthews and Monte Brannan, Nos. 24-1668 & 24-1677, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on 17 June 2025, is ostensibly a routine affirmance of mail-fraud and money-laundering convictions arising out of a failed hotel redevelopment in Peoria, Illinois. Beneath that surface, however, the opinion delivers a powerful secondary message: the Seventh Circuit will henceforth strictly enforce Circuit Rule 30 in criminal as well as civil appeals and will consider monetary sanctions where counsel “flout” the rule and falsely certify compliance.

The judgment therefore deserves attention for two distinct reasons:

1. Substantively, it reinforces familiar sufficiency-of-evidence principles in federal fraud and money-laundering prosecutions.
2. Procedurally, it announces a newly emphatic stance on appellate briefing duties—potentially altering counsel’s risk-calculus in every future Seventh Circuit appeal.

Parties

• United States of America – Appellee.
• Gary E. Matthews – Developer, co-manager of GEM Hospitality, convicted of mail fraud and money laundering.
• Monte J. Brannan – Business associate, convicted of mail fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to launder money.

Key Issues on Appeal

1. Sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1956, 1957, and 1956(h).
2. Unpreserved claims: inattentive juror and improper joinder.
3. Evidentiary and jury-instruction rulings involving Matthews.
4. Whether appellate counsel’s failure to include district-court orders/transcripts in the appendix violates Circuit Rule 30, warranting sanctions.

II. Summary of the Judgment

Judge Scudder, joined by Judges Easterbrook and Brennan, affirmed all convictions. Simultaneously, the panel issued an order to show cause requiring defense counsel to explain within 14 days why each should not be fined $2,000 for “inexcusable” violations of Circuit Rule 30(b)(1) and false certifications under Rule 30(d). The court emphasized it had to mine the record itself to obtain more than 100 pages of oral and written district-court rulings—work that counsel were obligated to perform.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and their Influence

1. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) – Articulates the “any rational trier of fact” standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review. The Seventh Circuit located the starting point for its deferential lens here.
2. United States v. Johnson, 874 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2017) – Describes sufficiency review as a “nearly insurmountable hurdle.” Used to warn appellants of the difficulty they face.
3. United States v. Anderson, 988 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2021) – Provides the “light most favorable to the government” formulation; applied to evidence of fund-diversion scheme.
4. United States v. Dooley, 578 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2009) and Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (1954) – Define when a defendant “causes” the mails to be used; pivotal to rejecting Brannan’s theory that he never personally mailed anything.
5. United States v. Turner, 400 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2005) – Lays out elements of money-laundering; supplied the yardstick for the financial transfers.
6. Hill v. Porter Memorial Hospital, 90 F.3d 220 (7th Cir. 1996) and United States v. Boliaux, 915 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2019) – Demonstrate the Seventh Circuit’s historical willingness to dismiss civil appeals for Rule 30 infractions. The instant opinion extends that threat explicitly to criminal defense attorneys.
7. United States v. Lathrop, 634 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2011) – Cited for discouraging the “kitchen-sink” approach to appellate issues.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Applying the Jackson standard, the court cataloged extensive circumstantial and direct evidence: checks redirected, misleading memo lines, testimonies of employees, and Brannan’s confrontation leading to his own participation. The panel emphasized that foreseeing mailings suffices to establish mail-fraud causation; direct mailing acts are unnecessary. For money-laundering counts, the loop of transfers through shell entities coupled with memo falsifications satisfied design-to-conceal intent under § 1956.

2. Waiver Doctrine

Claims relating to juror inattentiveness and misjoinder were deemed waived because appellants made no contemporaneous motions despite district-court invitations. The panel quoted United States v. Flores, 929 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2019), underscoring intentional relinquishment.

3. Underdeveloped Arguments

Matthews’s evidentiary and jury-instruction assignments of error lacked record citations or legal analysis; the court invoked Rule 28(a)(6) (statement-of-the-case requirement) and admonished counsel for attempting wholesale incorporation of co-defendant’s arguments—a practice the Federal Rules forbid.

4. Procedural Breach – Circuit Rule 30

The heart of the new precedent lies here. Circuit Rule 30(b)(1) obliges appellants to supply in an appendix every district-court ruling they intend to challenge, and Rule 30(d) commands a truthful certification that the appendix is complete. The panel painstakingly described having to retrieve more than 100 pages itself. Unlike previous opinions focused on civil cases, Matthews signals willingness to:

• Impose monetary sanctions (not mere warnings) for first-time violations in criminal appeals.
• Act sua sponte after the briefing cycle, not just on motion by the government.
• Deny that such enforcement harms defendants because the court will still review merits, but will hold counsel personally accountable.

C. Impact of the Judgment

1. Appellate Practice in the Seventh Circuit. Criminal defense attorneys now face the same dismissal/sanction risks long applied in civil appeals. Expect rapid improvement in appendices, more careful certifications, and perhaps supplemental filings in pending cases.
2. Resource Allocation. The court’s candor about “inordinate time” spent digging through records is a cautionary tale; future panels may be less forgiving, summarily affirming or dismissing claims left unsupported.
3. Professional Responsibility. False certification may trigger bar disciplinary referrals beyond the $2,000 fine. Counsel must balance speed, cost, and ethical obligations when perfecting appeals.
4. Substantive Criminal Law. While no new rule of mail-fraud or money-laundering law emerges, the opinion reinforces that foreseeability of mailings and circumstantial proof of concealment suffice—useful precedent for prosecutors and district courts drafting jury instructions.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341)

Using (or causing the use of) the Postal Service or private mail carrier to advance a scheme to defraud. “Causing” includes acts where mailing is a foreseeable by-product—even if defendant does not personally drop the envelope.

Money Laundering (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957)

Conducting financial transactions with criminal proceeds and knowing (a) the money came from unlawful activity and (b) the transaction is designed to hide its source or ownership.

Conspiracy to Launder Money (§ 1956(h))

An agreement between two or more people to commit money laundering, plus an act in furtherance.

Sufficiency-of-Evidence Review

On appeal, judges ask only whether any rational juror could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing evidence most favorably to the prosecution.

Waiver vs. Forfeiture

Waiver = intentional relinquishment; appellate court will not review. Forfeiture = failure to raise inadvertently; triggers plain-error review. In this case, defendants waived certain claims by declining the district court’s invitation to object.

Circuit Rule 30 (7th Cir.)

Requires appellants to compile in their appendix every district-court ruling relevant to issues raised, plus a truthful statement of compliance. Its goal is to streamline judicial review.

V. Conclusion

United States v. Gary Matthews is a dual-track decision. Substantively, it reaffirms well-settled sufficiency principles for fraud and money-laundering offenses and demonstrates the evidentiary force of circumstantial proof. Procedurally, it breaks newer ground by explicitly extending the Seventh Circuit’s sanctioning muscle for Circuit Rule 30 violations into the criminal arena. Counsel who previously viewed dismissal or fines as a civil-only hazard must recalibrate. Going forward, practitioners in all categories—CJA appointed, retained, or pro bono—should expect Matthews to be cited whenever an appendix is defective.

The key takeaways are plain:

• Circuit Rule 30 compliance is non-negotiable; false certifications invite monetary penalties.
• The Seventh Circuit will nonetheless protect defendants by independently reviewing the record, but counsel’s reputational and financial interests are at stake.
• Legal arguments must be fully developed and supported by record excerpts; incorporations by reference violate Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.

In the broader legal landscape, Matthews is poised to influence appellate procedure not only within the Seventh Circuit but also in sister circuits grappling with congested dockets and incomplete appendices. It reminds every litigator that procedural rules are not technicalities—they are the scaffolding of appellate justice.