Seventh Circuit Appeal Attorney Files Brief in United States v. Zhao
Seventh Circuit appeal attorney Michael J. Petro filed the opening appellate brief on behalf of Tangtang Zhao in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Tangtang Zhao, No. 23-3366.
The appeal challenged Zhao’s federal convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 641 and raised an important question concerning when property distributed by the federal government to a private company remains property of the United States.
Attorney Petro represented Zhao at trial and continued the representation through the Seventh Circuit appeal and a later petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
The Section 641 Government Property Issue
Zhao was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 641, a federal statute addressing theft, embezzlement, conversion, and unauthorized disposition of property of the United States.
The case involved blank COVID-19 vaccination record cards that had originally been purchased by the federal government and then distributed to Walgreens for use in the federal vaccination program.
The central appellate issue concerned whether the cards continued to constitute property of the United States after they had been delivered to Walgreens.
The defense argued that the answer depended on the degree of supervision and control the federal government retained over the physical cards.
The Seventh Circuit Appellate Brief
Attorney Petro filed Zhao’s opening brief in the Seventh Circuit in March 2024.
The brief challenged whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the federal government retained enough supervision and control over the vaccination cards for them to remain federal property under § 641.
The defense emphasized that the government had transferred the cards to a private pharmacy and argued that the evidence concerning continuing federal ownership and control was insufficient.
The appeal required analysis of federal cases addressing property that originates with the government but later passes into the possession of private individuals or organizations.
What Does Government Property Mean Under Section 641?
Section 641 applies only when the money, property, record, or thing of value belongs to the United States or one of its departments or agencies.
That requirement can become complicated when federal property is transferred to a private entity.
Courts have considered factors involving the government’s continuing supervision and control when determining whether property retains its federal character.
Potential considerations can include:
- Restrictions on use
- Government monitoring
- Inventory requirements
- Return obligations
- Audit rights
- Ability to recall or recover property
- Contractual restrictions
- Other evidence of continuing government control
The Zhao appeal addressed how those principles should apply to physical vaccination cards distributed to Walgreens.
The Jury Asked About Supervision and Control
The issue became particularly important during Zhao’s trial.
During deliberations, the jury asked the district court for guidance concerning what constituted sufficient federal supervision and control.
The district court did not provide a detailed definition or specific list of factors.
The jury ultimately convicted Zhao.
The defense argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the vaccination cards remained government property within the meaning of § 641.
The Seventh Circuit Affirmed the Conviction
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed Zhao’s conviction.
The appellate court concluded that the evidence permitted the jury to find that the federal government retained sufficient supervision and control over the vaccination cards.
The court relied on evidence concerning restrictions on the permitted use and distribution of the cards, government oversight of the vaccination program, and the government’s ability to terminate Walgreens’ participation for failure to comply with program requirements.
The appellate decision left unresolved a broader question about how much federal control is necessary for property transferred to a private organization to continue to qualify as property of the United States.
Petition to the United States Supreme Court
Following the Seventh Circuit decision, Attorney Petro filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
The petition asked the Court to address the standard for determining when property transferred by the government to a private party remains federal property under 18 U.S.C. § 641.
The Supreme Court docketed the case as Tangtang Zhao v. United States, No. 25-333.
The Supreme Court ultimately denied certiorari on November 10, 2025.
A denial of certiorari does not constitute approval or rejection of the lower court’s reasoning. It means the Supreme Court declined to review the case.
Why the Zhao Appeal Matters
The legal issue raised in Zhao extends beyond vaccination cards.
The federal government regularly distributes money, equipment, supplies, benefits, and other property through private businesses and organizations.
Potential disputes can arise over whether property continues to belong to the federal government after it enters private hands.
That distinction matters because federal criminal liability under § 641 depends on whether the property retains its federal character.
The Zhao litigation illustrates the importance of carefully examining the government’s ownership, supervision, and control rather than assuming that property remains federal simply because the government originally purchased it.
Federal Appeals Under Section 641
Federal criminal appeals involving § 641 may raise issues concerning:
- Whether the property belonged to the United States
- Whether the government retained sufficient supervision and control
- Whether the defendant acted knowingly
- Whether the government proved conversion or theft
- The value of the property
- Jury instructions
- Sufficiency of the evidence
- Evidentiary rulings
- Other preserved legal issues
The appropriate appellate arguments depend on the record created in the district court and the governing federal law.
Experienced Seventh Circuit Appeal Attorney
Federal criminal appeals require careful review of the trial record, legal research, identification of preserved issues, and persuasive written advocacy.
Michael J. Petro has more than 35 years of criminal defense experience and has represented clients in federal appeals before the Seventh, Eleventh, and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals.
His representation of Tangtang Zhao included the federal jury trial, the Seventh Circuit appeal, and a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
If you or a family member is considering a federal criminal appeal, consulting an experienced Seventh Circuit appeal attorney can help identify potential appellate issues and available options.
Contact Michael J. Petro to discuss your federal criminal appeal.