CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES AND THEIR IMPORTANCE
1. The Decision substantially and improperly raises the Government's burden in
prosecuting an illegal gratuity to a government official under 18 U.S.C.
§ 201(c)(1)(A). It directly conflicts with a Supreme Court decision (Standefer
v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980)); the decisions of at least four other circuits
(United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2nd Cir. 1966); United
States v. Standefer, 610 F.2d 1076, 1080 (3rd Cir. 1978) (en banc),
aff'd 447 U.S. 10, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980); United States v.
Bustamante, 45 F.3d 933, 940 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Evans,
572 F.2d 455, 480 (5th Cir. 1978); and United States v. Alessio, 528
F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 1976)); and earlier decisions of this circuit (United
States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1974) and United States v. Campbell,
684 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1982)).
Contrary to all previous law on the subject, which holds that the Government need only
show the donor's intent to curry the official's favor and goodwill generally, the Decision
now requires that a gratuity in the District be linked to a "specific" past act
or a "concrete" future act of the public official, and thereby blurring the
distinction between gratuities and bribes. Slip Opinion at pp. 7-8.
This interpretation has enormous implications for future enforcement of the gratuity
statute, offering future wrongdoers the opportunity to evade the statute simply by linking
their gratuities to "generalized sympathy" rather than to specific acts.
Furthermore, it sets a standard for the gratuities law in the nation's capital that is
inconsistent with, and notably more lenient than, the standard elsewhere in the country.
2. The Decision reversed the sentencing decision through de novo review of the
district court's upward departure, even though the Supreme Court expressly held only two
years ago that any appellate review of a departure decision must be confined to an abuse
of discretion standard. In so doing, the Decision thwarted the intention of Congress, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court, that the discretion in this matter should lie with the
district courts, which have day-to-day experience in sentencing matters.
I. THE GRATUITIES STATUTE DECISION REQUIRES REHEARING BECAUSE IT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, OTHER CIRCUITS, AND THIS COURT(1)
The Decision directly conflicts with the decisions of at least four other Circuits, and
-- most importantly -- the express holding of the Supreme Court, which affirmed one of
those Circuit decisions. United States v. Standefer, 610 F.2d 1076 (3rd
Cir. 1978) (en banc), aff'd 447 U.S. 10, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 64 L.Ed.2d 689
(1980). The Decision is also inconsistent with other decisions of this Court and
internally inconsistent. Rehearing, or rehearing en banc, is required because the
Decision will severely hamper future enforcement of the illegal gratuity statute. See,
e.g., Church of Scientology of California, 792 F.2d 153, 155 n. 1 (D.C. Cir.
1986) (en banc) (usual purpose of en banc review is "the
establishment of legal rules for future guidance.")
The gratuity statute forbids gratuities given to public officials "for or because
of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official
. . . ." Under the Decision, it is not enough for the Government to
prove that the giver sought to curry the "generalized sympathy" of a public
official who regulates the giver's business(2) -- even
though, of necessity, such gratuities would have been given for or because of the official
acts that the official was in a position to perform. Rather, under the Decision, the
Government must tie the gratuities to a "concrete" (Slip Opinion
at p. 7) or "specific" (Slip Opinion at p. 8) act. This result
simply invites future givers of gratuities to lavish their largesse on government
officials in a generalized fashion as a ploy to evade prosecution.
A. THE DECISION DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Decision frankly acknowledges that it creates an irreconcilable split among the
circuits that have considered how the Government should satisfy the "official
acts" requirement, and cites contrary decisions from the Second, Third, Fifth, and
Ninth Circuits. Slip Opinion at p. 11. The Decision's direct rejection of the Third
Circuit's decision in United States v. Standefer, 610 F.2d 1076 (3rd
Cir. 1978) (en banc), aff'd 447 U.S. 10, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 64 L.Ed.2d 689
(1980), distances this circuit not only from these other circuits but also from the
Supreme Court.
In Standefer, the Supreme Court endorsed the broader interpretation of
§ 201 that the Decision rejected in this case. On appeal, Standefer challenged the
jury instructions on the same ground the defendant has raised in this case, that the
instructions failed to require proof that he gave the gratuities as a reward for or to
influence official acts. United States v. Standefer, 610 F.2d 1076, 1080 (3d Cir.
1979) (en banc). The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, rejected the
defendant's argument, declaring that "[a]ll that was required in order to convict
Standefer was that the jury conclude that the gifts were given by him for or because of
[the official's] official position, and not solely for reasons of friendship or social
purposes." Id.
The Supreme Court expressly affirmed the Third Circuit's interpretation of § 201
and the district court's jury instructions:
Petitioner also challenges the instructions to the jury on criminal intent. We agree
with the Court of Appeals that the instructions were correct.
Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 14 n.8 (1980).
Standefer had sought Supreme Court review of, inter alia, the propriety of the
gratuity jury instructions. In his opening merits brief, Standefer argued that the
district court's gratuity instructions were erroneous because "[t]he charge that it
was sufficient if the payments were paid for any reason in connection with the audits was
tantamount to a directed verdict of guilty and did not consider the defense that the golf
trips were taken for friendship and were not within the purview of the criminal
statutes." Brief of Petitioner, No. 79-383, Standefer v. United States, at
42 (available on LEXIS).(3) The United States responded
that the jury instructions were correct because the gratuity statute is "designed to
prevent officials from being tempted by unauthorized compensation -- even if in particular
circumstances the temptation is resisted." Brief of United States, No. 79-383, Standefer
v. United States, at 60 (available on LEXIS). In his reply brief,(4)
Standefer relied on this court's decision in United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d
62 (D.C. Cir. 1974), to argue that the jury instructions were erroneous. Reply Brief of
Petitioner, No. 79-383, Standefer v. United States, at 9-13 (available on LEXIS).
The Decision in the present case holds that the jury instructions given on the
gratuities count case were fatally defective, requiring reversal of defendant's
conviction, because "they invited the jury to convict on materially less evidence
than the statute demands . . . ." Slip Opinion at p. 12. But
these jury instructions, as the chart below demonstrates, closely paralleled the Standefer
instructions, which the Supreme Court expressly approved:
Standefer instructions |
Sun-Diamond instructions |
"[T]he essential elements of this offense which
must be proved by the government beyond a reasonable doubt are . . . third, that
the defendant did give, offer or promise anything of value to [the official] for
or because of an official act performed or to be performed by him
. . . ." (p. 15-16)(5) |
"[T]he government must prove . . . beyond a
reasonable doubt . . . Third, the defendant Sun-Diamond Growers of California
. . . did so for or because of an official act performed or to
be performed by Michael Espy." Joint Appendix Tab 3, RT 860:24-861:13. |
"[T]he statute requires that the receipt be in connection with a
proceeding in controversy or question, a matter, cause or suit, proceeding or controversy
which may at any time be pending or be brought by him in his official capacity."
(p. 16) |
"The term 'official act' means any decision or action on any
question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy which may at any time be pending
or which may be law be brought before any public official in such official's
capacity on such official's place of trust or profit." Joint Appendix Tab 3,
RT 862:5-9. |
"[I]t is not necessary that you find the defendant gave such things
of value with the intent of influencing an Internal Revenue Agent in performing his audit
or audits of [defendant's employer's] returns. It is sufficient if the defendant made
these payments because of desire to create a better atmosphere with [the
official] with respect to the performance of the audit or appreciation for a speedy or
favorable audit . . . ." (p. 16) |
"[I]t is not necessary to show that the payment is intended for a
particular matter then pending before the official. It is sufficient if the motivating
factor is just to keep the official happy or to create a better
relationship in general with the official."(6)
Joint Appendix Tab 3, RT 860:16-20. |
"[I]t is not necessary to show any agreement by or with [the
official] as to any particular act or acts or duties to be performed or done, but
only that something of value was given to him for or because of an official act performed
or to be performed by him in the course of his duty."
"Again, it is not necessary for the government to show that the gift
caused or prompted or in any way affected the happening of the official act or
its extent or manner or the means by which it was performed." (p. 18) |
"The government need not prove that the alleged gratuity was
linked to a specific or identifiable official act or any act at all. In other
words, the government need not prove that the gratuity was given as a quid pro quo,
that is, in exchange for any one specific action performed or to be performed by the
Secretary." Joint Appendix Tab 3, RT 871:16-21. |
"I must say to you, however, that if on the other
hand these acts in making gifts to [the official] had nothing to do with giving
things of value to a public official for performance of acts to be performed by
him, but on the contrary, as contended by the defendant, these
things were given as a matter of friendship or for social purposes only, then you should
acquit defendant." (p. 18) |
"In order for you to convict Sun-Diamond of violating the gratuity
statute, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that Sun-Diamond
gave the gifts to Mr. Espy for or because of Mr. Espy's official government position and
not solely for reasons of friendship or social purpose." Joint Appendix Tab
3, RT 863:5-9. |
"The statutes prohibit the agreement to give, offer or promise to
give things of value for the purpose, if proven, of creating good
will, favoritism and better working atmosphere or a preference in connection with a public
official's performance of his official duties or acts." (p.26) |
"[T]he government must prove that the gratuity was knowingly and
willing [sic] given for or because of an official act performed or to be
performed by [the official]. That means that the government must prove that [defendant]
knowingly and willingly gave the gratuities, at least in part, because of [the
official's] position in appreciation of [defendant's] relationship with him as a public
official or in anticipation of the continuation of its relationship with him as a public
official." Joint Appendix Tab 3, RT 871:5-15. |
"[I]t is sufficient if these payments were paid for any reason in
connection with the audit, because of a desire to create a better working atmosphere, or
appreciation for a speedy or favorable audit, and that any of these would be purposes that
whether the returns were correct or not is not relevant in this case. But it has to be for
the purpose of giving these things to the agent on account of these returns and his
position with respect thereto." (p. 50.) |
"It is not a defense to providing an illegal gratuity to [the
official] that [defendant] did not intend to influence [the official] to take any
particular action regarding [certain enumerated issues]. It is, however, a defense to the
charges . . . that [defendant] did not provide a gratuity to [the official] for
or because of his official position." Joint Appendix Tab 3,
RT 863:10-18. |
The Supreme Court's approval of these instructions drives home the difficulties created
by the Decision's explicit rejection of Standefer and the similar decisions in
the other circuits.
B. THE DECISION DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISIONS OF AT LEAST FOUR OTHER CIRCUITS
The Decision candidly acknowledges that it creates a significant circuit split,
recognizing contrary decisions in the Second, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits.(7) Slip Opinion at p. 11. For that reason alone, this
case merits rehearing or rehearing en banc.
The decisions in these other circuits all appear to recognize, as the Decision does
not, that:
The purpose of these statutes is to reach any situation in which the judgment of a
government agent might be clouded because of payments or gifts made to him by reason of
his position "otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official
duty." Even if corruption is not intended by either the donor or the donee, there is
still a tendency in such a situation to provide conscious or unconscious preferential
treatment of the donor by the donee, or the inefficient management of public affairs.
These statutes . . . are a congressional effort to eliminate the temptation
inherent in such a situation . . . .
Evans, 572 F.2d at 480.(8) Interestingly, the Evans
decision cites this court's decision in United States v. Brewster, 506
F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1974), for the proposition that "[t]he gravamen of each offense
. . . is not an intent to be corrupted or influenced, but simply the acceptance
of unauthorized compensation." Id. at 481. And the Brewster
decision, in turn, noted that "[w]e do not necessarily disagree with the analysis of
the Second Circuit in Umans," 506 F.2d at 73, n.26, even though Umans
is one of the out-of-circuit cases now expressly rejected.
Thus, everywhere in the nation,(9) except now in the
District of Columbia, it is a gratuity offense to give a federal official a gift to create
"goodwill" or "a better atmosphere." In the District, however, any
entity wishing to purchase governmental favor has been advised by this court to attach a
label to its gifts stating "for general sympathy only," and to challenge the
prosecution to prove otherwise.
C. THE DECISION ALSO CONFLICTS WITH EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
Not surprisingly, given the distance the Decision strays from the law elsewhere in the
nation, it is also inconsistent with earlier precedent in this circuit, which it
unsuccessfully tries to harmonize, rendering an already difficult area of the law even
more opaque. In United States v. Campbell, 684 F.2d 141, 149-150 (D.C. Cir.
1982), concerning a judge's receipt of gratuities, this court rejected defendant's
"somewhat startling claim" that a charge that defendant was seeking
"lenient treatment" was insufficient under the statute. In so doing, this court
distinguished its earlier decision in United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62
(D.C. Cir. 1974), upon which the Decision heavily relies, noting that in Brewster
the gratuities were campaign contributions to an elected official, so that Brewster
reflects the "thin but necessary line that must be drawn between campaign
contributions and improper gratuities." 648 F.2d at 150, n.16.
The Decision characterizes Campbell as disappointing any
"expectation" that Brewster suggested "a readiness to jettison the
intent requirement in cases involving appointed officials." Slip Opinion at
p. 9. It is highly unlikely that anyone expected the courts to jettison the statutory
requirement that a gratuity be given "for or because of any official act." What Campbell
did eliminate (if the matter was in doubt after Brewster), but the Decision in
this case has now reinstated, is a requirement that a gratuity that is not a campaign
contribution be linked to a "concrete" or "specific" act.
D. THE DECISION IS INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT
Considered in isolation, the Decision is internally inconsistent. In rejecting
Sun-Diamond's "broader argument,"(10) the
Decision properly held that the jury was not required to find that the gratuity was
conferred with specific knowledge of a definite official action for which compensation was
intended, and concludes that "the jury is required to find the requisite intent to
reward past acts or to make future ones more likely." Slip Opinion at
p. 13 (emphasis added). But a few pages earlier, addressing the jury
instructions, the Decision holds that "the giver must intend . . . to
reward some past concrete official act or acts, or to enhance the likelihood of
some future act or acts," Slip Opinion at p. 7 (emphasis added), and that
"a gift looking to future acts can be an unlawful gratuity where the giver is
motivated by the desire to increase the likelihood of one or more specific
favorable acts," Slip Opinion at p. 8 (emphasis added). Future trial courts will
undoubtedly face nearly insurmountable difficulties as they try to instruct juries that
they must find that gratuities were given for "concrete" past acts or
"specific" future acts, but that they need not find that the gratuities were
given with "specific knowledge" of any intended "definite official
action," but only to make "future [acts] more likely," although
"generalized sympathy" does not suffice.
The inconsistent holdings of the Decision raise the danger that in the future courts
will have great difficulty in distinguishing between gratuities and bribes. If the jury is
instructed that it must find a connection between the gift and a "specific" or
"concrete" act, it will be difficult if not impossible for it to differentiate
between an illegal gratuity and a bribe. The bribery offense, which carries a punishment
of 15 years imprisonment, requires an "intent to influence" (18 U.S.C.
§ 201(b)(1)(A)); the gratuity offense, which carries a punishment of 2 years
imprisonment, does not (18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A)). But according to the decision,
"those gifts would not be illegal gratuities, unless the jury found that Douglas
sought this generalized sympathy to influence Espy to perform one or more
official acts sometime in the future." Slip Opinion at p. 9-10 (emphasis added).
E. CONCLUSION -- THE DECISION UNDERMINES ENFORCEMENT OF THIS IMPORTANT STATUTE
The Decision in this case is contrary to controlling Supreme Court precedent and
creates a significant (and acknowledged) circuit split on the interpretation of an
important federal criminal statute. Moreover, the unfortunate result of the Decision is
that the law in the District of Columbia Circuit, the seat of the federal government, is
significantly more tolerant of gratuities to federal officials than in any other part of
the country. It is astonishing that a gratuity that would be illegal if given to a minor
federal official in a local office somewhere else in the country nonetheless would be
legal if conferred upon a Cabinet Secretary in Washington. The Decision stands as a
virtual invitation to regulated entities to flood government offices in the District with
gratuities earmarked for general goodwill and "generalized sympathy." The
confused state of the law that the Decision engenders undermines enforcement and
complicates the lives of those who would try to stay within its strictures.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court may be required to reaffirm its decision in Standefer
and resolve the conflict the Circuit's Decision created. Before that occurs, the
Government respectfully submits, the panel or the court en banc should rehear the
Decision on this important issue of federal criminal law and government integrity.
II. THE SENTENCING DECISION REQUIRES REHEARING BECAUSE IT IMPERMISSIBLY
ENCROACHES ON THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISCRETION TO CHOOSE AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN SENTENCING(11)
In reversing the district court's upward departure in sentencing, the Decision openly
oversteps the Supreme Court's unambiguous limitations on the exercise of appellate power.
Specifically, the Decision reviews de novo the district court's decision to
depart from the Sentencing Guidelines. Slip Opinion at p. 25. But the Supreme Court
could not have been clearer: "The appellate court should not review the
departure decision de novo, but instead should ask whether the court abused its
discretion." Koon v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 2035, 2043 (1996) (emphasis
added).
The Decision tries to justify the use of a de novo standard by noting that
whether a factor should ever be considered is a purely legal question that can be
reviewed de novo. Slip Opinion at p. 25, citing Koon, 116 S.Ct. at
2047. That is not the issue under review here. The Sentencing Guidelines specifically list
the proscribed factors, id. at 2044, and the status of the official receiving a
gratuity is not among them. The issue under review is whether the Secretary of Agriculture
is a sufficiently important public official to justify a departure when the court
sentences a defendant convicted of giving him a gratuity.(12)
The Decision recognizes that the question under review is not one of law but one of
"degree." Id. at 25, 27, 29. Nevertheless, it proceeds with a de
novo analysis on the theory that the determination of whether a Cabinet Secretary's
status should affect the sentence is a "onetime issue" that is "hardly the
sort of fact-intensive issue calling for extreme deference." Id. at 26.
However, the Supreme Court in Koon foreclosed any such attempt to analogize a
departure analysis to a legal question:
The Government seeks to avoid the factual nature of the departure inquiry by describing
it at a higher level of generality linked closely to questions of law. The relevant
question, however, is not . . . whether a particular factor is within the
heartland, as a general proposition, . . . but whether the particular factor is
within the heartland given all the facts of the case.
Id. at 2048 (quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court rejected this
argument and required the appellate court to limit itself to an abuse of discretion
review. Id. at 2046-47.
The Decision nevertheless substitutes this court's judgment for the district court's,
holding that under the facts of this case, the gratuity recipient's status as a Cabinet
Secretary was not sufficiently unusual to warrant upward departure. This conclusion does
not withstand scrutiny.
The Guidelines provide an eight-level increase to the base offense level for giving
gratuities "[i]f the gratuity was given, or to be given to an elected official or any
official holding a high-level decision-making or sensitive position." U.S.S.G.
§ 2C1.2(b)(2)(B). The Application notes include, as examples of high level
positions, "prosecuting attorneys, judges, agency administrators, supervisory law
enforcement officers and other governmental officials with similar levels of
responsibility." Application Note 1. In imposing the two level increase, the District
Judge clearly enunciated why he departed upward -- because of the gratuity recipient's
position and very significant national responsibilities as Secretary of Agriculture. Slip
Opinion at p. 25.
The Decision postulates that the Sentencing Commission must have contemplated including
the President and Cabinet officers within the eight-level increase proscribed for
officials like judges, prosecuting attorneys, agency administrators and supervisory law
enforcement officers, but common sense dictates otherwise. There are, for example, 4,795
United States and Assistant United States Attorneys, 2,180 Supervisory FBI Agents, 843
District Court and Appellate Judges, 545 Members of Congress, and 1,500 Agency
Administrators.(13) In this relatively large gathering,
the Cabinet Secretaries and a handful of other officials certainly occupy a rarefied
stratum. But, even more to the point, the significance of this distinction of necessity
turns on the facts of the case -- whether the Secretary's status meant, in the context of
the gratuities he was given and of his power to affect the course of national policy, that
the crime of which Sun-Diamond was convicted involved public responsibilities to an
unusual and unanticipated degree. This is the quintessentially fact-bound inquiry that
this court is constrained to review only for abuse of discretion.
III. CONCLUSION
Two separate issues decided in the Decision demand rehearing. The interpretation of the
gratuities statute is out of step with the law enunciated everywhere else (including the
Supreme Court), and previously in this circuit. And the sentencing decision invades the
discretion of the district court in a way forbidden by the Supreme Court. The Government
respectfully requests rehearing, and suggests the appropriateness of rehearing en banc,
on both of these issues.
Date: May 4, 1998 |
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
DONALD C. SMALTZ
Independent Counsel |
CERTIFICATE AS TO LENGTH OF PETITION
I hereby certify pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(d)(1) that the length of Appellee's
Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing en banc is 15 pages
containing 4881 words.
_____________________ Robert W. Ray |
|
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that two true and correct copies of Appellee's Petition for Rehearing
and Suggestion for Rehearing en banc were served via hand delivery this 4th day
of May, 1998 on:
Richard A. Hibey, Esq.
Eric W. Bloom, Esq.
Charles Klein, Esq.
Winston & Strawn
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
_____________________ Robert W. Ray |
|
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-3072
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, |
Appellee, |
v. |
SUN-DIAMOND GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., |
Appellant. |
____________________
ADDENDUM TO PETITION FOR REHEARING
AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
DONALD C. SMALTZ
Independent Counsel THEODORE S. GREENBERG
Deputy Independent Counsel
ROBERT W. RAY
Chief Associate Independent Counsel
CHARLES M. KAGAY
Chief Appellate Counsel
STEPHEN R. McALLISTER
Assistant Independent Counsel
Office of Independent Counsel
103 Oronoco Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 706-0010 |
|
DATE: May 4, 1998
ADDENDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tab
A. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, Inc., Panel Opinion
B. Jury charge from Standefer v. United States
Foot Notes
1. This part of this Petition concerns the portion of the Decision
reversing the conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A), which appears at pages 3 to
13 of the Slip Opinion. Back
2. Slip Opinion at p. 9-10 ("if Douglas furnished Espy
with gifts merely to win his generalized sympathy for Sun-Diamond, those gifts would not
be illegal gratuities, unless the jury found that Douglas sought this generalized sympathy
to influence Espy to perform one or more official acts sometime in the future."). Back
3. This Petition cites to the petitions, briefs, and appendix filed
with the Supreme Court in Standefer. These documents are all available throught
the LEXIS service, but LEXIS does not assign electronic database citations to them. They
can be located through a LEXIS search in the "GENFED" library,
"BRIEFS" file, using the search term "NUMBER (79-383)." The page
numbers provided in this Petition do not appear in the LEXIS versions. Back
4. Standefer argued that the "for or because of" official
acts language in the statute's gratuity provision "was aimed at rewards for an
official act," not the mere "receipt of gifts." Reply Brief of Petitioner,
No. 79-383, Standefer v. United States, at 9-11 (available on LEXIS). Standefer
then argued that this court's Brewster decision correctly interpreted the
gratuity statute to require proof of the gratuity "being made because of a
specifically identified act, and with a certain guilty knowledge
. . . ." Id. at 11-13 (quoting from Brewster). In
essence, Standefer appears to have been arguing that the District Court's jury
instructions on intent in the gratuity context were erroneous because they neither
required proof of any particular official act that Standefer intended to reward nor that
he had sufficient "corrupt intent" in providing golf trips to the IRS agent. Back
5. The page citations given in this table are to the Appendix filed
with the Supreme Court. These instructions are attached to this Petition in full as
Addendum B. The Third Circuit's original unpublished panel decision in Standefer quoted
the jury instructions in part, and can be found at United States v. Standefer,
1979 WL 4863 (3rd Cir. 1979).Back
6. The Decision singles out this portion of the instructions for
criticism. Slip Opinion at p. 6.Back
7. United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2nd
Cir. 1966); United States v. Standefer, 610 F.2d 1076, 1080 (3rd Cir.
1978) (en banc), aff'd 447 U.S. 10, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 64 L.Ed.2d 689
(1980); United States v. Bustamante, 45 F.3d 933, 940 (5th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 480 (5th Cir. 1978); and United
States v. Alessio, 528 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 1976). Back
8. See also, United States v. Niederberger, 580
F.2d 63, 68-69 (3rd Cir. 1978) ("we find it unnecessary for the Government
to allege . . . that a gratuity received by a public official was, in any way,
generated by some specific, identifiable act performed or to be performed by the
official"); United States v. Bustamante, 45 F.3d at 940 ("it is
sufficient for the government to show that the defendant was given the gratuity simply
because he held public office"); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d at 730; United
States v. Alessio, 528 F.2d at 1082. Back
9. The Decision purports to find some support for its result in
decisions from the First and Fourth Circuits (Slip Opinion at p. 11), but the
reliance on these authorities is strained. In United States v. Muldoon, 931 F.2d
282 (4th Cir. 1991), the court described the gratuity offense with respect to
an official act, but the defendant (who was challenging a bribery conviction) conceded
that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of an illegal gratuity, so the court had
no occasion to consider the parameters of the gratuity offense. In United States v.
Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 735-736 (1st Cir. 1996), the court construed a
similarly-worded state statute, finding that no specific act motivating the gratuity need
be identified, but rebuffed any attempt to link the interpretation of the state statute to
the federal one, noting that "[t]his is not the proper case for us to decide the
federal issue." Id. at 738. Back
10. Sun-Diamond asserted that the statute "requires the
government to prove a nexus between each unauthorized gift and some specifically
identified act . . . ." Slip Opinion at p. 4.Back
11. This part of this Petition concerns the portion of the Decision
reversing the upward departure in sentencing, which appears at pages 25 to 29 of the Slip
Opinion. Back
12. The Guidelines do not prohibit departure based on a gratuity
receiver's position. In fact, the opposite is true -- the Guidelines recognize that
position is a valid consideration in sentencing those who give gratuities. U.S.S.G.
§ 2C1.2(b)(2)(B). The issue here is one of the degree to which that factor was
adequately considered under the Guidelines. Back
13. This number is a rough estimate of the number of administrators
in the Executive Branch. For example, in the Department of Agriculture, 17 people have the
title "administrator," and 18 people in the number two position are titled
Associate Administrator or Associate Chief. At the third tier, there are approximately 50
Deputy Administrators. Back
Back to top
|