United States v. Grusd

Grusd · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · January 14, 2026 · No. No. 24-3120

Summary

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Sean Grusd’s restitution order following his guilty plea to wire fraud. The court held that Grusd waived any challenge to the approximately $1.6 million reduction from the agreed restitution amount by acquiescing to the credit at sentencing, and that the challenge would also fail under plain-error review.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Taibleson, Circuit Judge; Brennan, Chief Judge; Sykes, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
January 14, 2026
Docket number
No. 24-3120
Procedural posture
Grusd appealed the restitution portion of his federal criminal judgment, arguing that the district court improperly credited approximately $1.6 million against the restitution amount without sufficient factual substantiation.
Standard of review
Waiver ordinarily extinguishes appellate review. If the issue was merely forfeited, the court applies plain-error review and requires an error that is plain, affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Precedential value
Published and precedential
Parties
Sean Grusd v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

restitution criminalcriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of reviewpreservation of error

Practice areas

Criminal procedureFederal sentencingRestitutionAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Grusd waived his challenge to the approximately $1.6 million credit applied to his restitution obligation by acquiescing to the credit and failing to object at sentencing.
  2. If the restitution challenge was forfeited rather than waived, whether the district court plainly erred by relying on the parties' representations concerning the credit without requiring additional evidence.
  3. Whether the restitution credit affected Grusd's substantial rights or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

Holdings

  1. Grusd waived his objection to the approximately $1.6 million restitution credit because he was informed of the credit, his counsel acquiesced to it, failed to question the amount, and confirmed at the end of the hearing that no issues remained.
  2. Even assuming Grusd merely forfeited the issue, the district court did not plainly err by relying on the parties' representations and ordering the restitution amount they requested.
  3. Grusd could not establish that the restitution credit affected substantial rights or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings.

Key quotations

“Waiver occurs when a party intentionally relinquishes a known right,” and it “extinguishes appellate review.” (4)
“this pattern of ‘missed opportunities’” to object and “inaction in the face of notice” points to waiver, not forfeiture. (5)
If the district judge erred in granting the $1.6 million credit, then Grusd received a windfall, not a deprivation of substantial rights so serious that it calls into question the integrity of judicial proceedings. (7)

Factual background

During 2021 and 2022, Grusd defrauded numerous investors by falsely representing that he was a successful investor and would invest their funds in promising businesses. He used fraudulent stock certificates, purchase agreements, and bank statements to support the scheme and spent victims' money on personal expenses. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and acknowledged approximately $23,155,000 in victim losses and restitution, subject to credit for amounts repaid before sentencing.

Procedural history

Grusd pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Illinois to one count of wire fraud. The presentence report and plea agreement identified approximately $23.155 million in restitution, but at sentencing the district court ordered $21,557,739 after crediting approximately $1.6 million in recoveries. Grusd did not object at sentencing, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that he waived the challenge and that the claim would fail even under plain-error review.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…