### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 14-1701

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff-Appellee
,

v.

E UGENE M ULLINS , Defendant-Appellant

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 12 CR 596— Amy J. St. Eve
, Judge

.

____________________

A RGUED S EPTEMBER 23, 2014

— D ECIDED S EPTEMBER 3, 2015

____________________

Before P OSNER, R OVNER, and W ILLIAMS , Circuit Judges

. W ILLIAMS , Circuit Judge . Eugene Mullins, the former Director of Public Affairs and Communications for CookCounty, Illinois, was indicted for wire fraud and bribery because he fraudulently arranged service contracts for severalvendors and accepted over $34,000 in bribes from them. Jurors convicted him of four coun ts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and four counts of bribery, id . § 666. In this appeal Mullins challenges the sufficien cy of the evidence support-2 No. 14-1701

ing his convictions and contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. Because th e evidence was sufficient toconvict Mullins of wire fraud and bribery offenses and because no harmful prosecutorial misconduct occurred, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND Beginning in 2008 Mullins serv ed as Cook County’s Director of Public Affairs and Communications. During his time at that post, Cook County used a two-tiered system for approving service contracts. Contracts requiring the county to spend $25,000 or more had to be approved by its Board of Commissioners. Contracts that re quired the county to spend less than $25,000, however, required the approval of only the county’s purchasing agent. Th e government charged Mullinsand his codefendants—vendors to whom the county awarded contracts—with manipulating th is system to their benefit. The scheme was as follows. Mullins helped these vendors obtain payment under county service contracts, without the vendors having to complete any work, and in exchange they paid Mullins $34,748 in bribes. Specifically, Mullins helped Gwendolyn Moody, Clifford Borner, and Kenneth Demos secure contracts that ostensibly promoted census awareness.He assisted Gary Render in obtaining a contract that supposedly helped county residents affected by floods in 2008.And he aided Michael Peery, who sought a contract designed to promote energy efficiency. The prosecution opened its ca se with the testimony of Mullins’s secretary, Annette Goldsmith. She testified that to be approved for a contract under $25,000 a vendor must provide her with a proposal, an invoice of work, and taxNo. 14-1701 3

forms so that she could create a justification letter. She explained that Mullins, the purchasing agent, the county comptroller, and others would review and sign the forms, invoice, and justification letter. Goldsmith testified that the county generally paid the selected vendor after the vendor had completed the contracted work. But, she testified, this procedure was ignored for the contracts awarded to Moody, Demos, Render, Borner, and Pe ery. Goldsmith identified Mullins’s initials on the justification letters and invoices fortheir contracts. Mullins, however, later denied that the initials were his, reading them as “LU” rather than “EM.”Next to testify were the vendors and codefendants involved in Mullins’s contract scheme—Borner, Demos, Moody, Render, and Peery. The government agreed to defer prosecution of them, under charg es of misprision of felony, in exchange for their testimony and admissions of guilt.

Borner testified about the ce nsus contract, which was invoiced at $24,995.00. To prepare to secure that contract,Borner testified that he provided Mullins with some paperwork but he did not draft the invoice. Instead, Mullins created Borner’s invoice and attributed contract work to the nonexistent “Clifford Borner and Associates,” a fictitious company to which the contract work was awarded. Borner admitted that before receiving the contract he did not knowanything about census awareness or reporting. He also conceded that he received over $24,000 for his contract, even though he did not do enough work to justify that sum (hemainly passed out fliers door-to-door). Borner further testified that Mullins required him to remit $5,000 to a “subcontractor,” which he did by bringing the money to an elevator in cash and handing it to Mullins.4 No. 14-1701

Mullins’s lawyer suggested during Borner’s cross examination that Borner was lying. Before trial the prosecution had disclosed to Mullins’s lawy er that, as Borner was preparing for trial, he told the prosecution that he recently learned that three years earlier a federal agent had threatened to shut down his wife’s day care business. That threat supposedlycame during the government’s investigation into public contracts awarded to her business in 2010. Despite this disclosure, on cross examination Bo rner denied reporting this threat to the prosecution—leading to the suggestion that Borner was lying. On redirect examination, Borner clarified himself: Although three years earlier he had not known of ortold the prosecution about the supposed threat, he did report it to the prosecution shortl y before trial, when his wife mentioned it to him. He also added that, in fact, he believed that no threats were actually made to her.

Demos also testified about th e census contracts. He stated that he had not created the invoices (Mullins had) and that he had not performed $25,000 worth of work, despite the payment from Cook County. Demos recalled that when Mullins gave him the check from Cook County Mullins told him that he should think of it as a gift. In testimony similarto that from Borner, Demos explained that Mullins had instructed him to pay over $8,000 to Mullins so that Mullins could pay an unnamed “subcontractor.” Next up was Moody, who also testified about a census contract. She stated that her in itial invoice amount had been too high, so Mullins directed her to alter it so that it fell under $25,000. Like the others, she also received a check from Cook County before performing any work. (She returned the check because of a problem with her business name.)No. 14-1701 5

Render testified about the flood-relief grant. He stated that Mullins had decided on a final amount for his contract.Render also explained that Mullins had wanted him to return $9,000 from the contract award to Mullins. Render gave Mullins the cash because he thought Mullins deserved it and because he wanted to ensure that he could get future work from Cook County. Peery testified about the funds he received to do outreach work for energy efficiency. He stated that Mullins had helped him, too, draft his co ntract proposal and the accompanying invoice outlining the anticipated work. After Peery was awarded the contract, Mullins told him that he would need to pay Mullins $12,000 in cash, which Peery did. Peery stated that Mullins told him that the money was going to a subcontractor but Peery thought that it “wasn’t adding up” and that no subcontracts actually existed.Mullins presented witnesses in his defense. These included several character witnesses and Karen Crawford, aCook County employee. Crawford testified that Cook County did not have a rule that prohibited vendors from being paid before working, but she admitted that in her experience prepayment was not the norm. Mullins also testified in his own defense. He stated that he had recommended vendors but had not chosen them, had arranged for Cook County employees to assist vendors who had difficulty completing their proposals, and had not cr eated, drafted, or overseen any of the contracts at issue in the trial. During closing argument, the government emphasized that the vendors had all received their payments up front. To burnish the point the prosecutor stated that all employees from Cook County, including the defense witnesses, “said6 No. 14-1701

the same thing: ‘we don’t pay in advance.’” Mullins objected to this statement during closing, calling it a misstatement of Crawford’s testimony. The judge then instructed the jurors torely on their own recollection of the testimony. The prosecutor proceeded with the closin g argument, re-characterizingthe previous statement to conform with Crawford’s testimony that upfront payment was not the norm. The jury found Mullins guilty of all the charges except one count of wire fraud. The district court sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment and this appeal followed.

II. ANALYSISOn appeal Mullins makes two arguments. First, he maintains that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of either wire fraud or bribery. Second, he contends that the prosecutor suborned perjury, intimidated witnesses, and made improper statements during closing arguments. We discuss each argument in turn. A. Sufficiency of the Evidence Mullins begins by arguing that the government produced insufficient evidence to convic t him of wire fraud and bribery. Sufficiency challenges are very difficult to win becausewe view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and reverse only if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. McClellan , No. 14-2449, 2015 WL 4451052, at *3 (7th Cir. July 21, 2015); United States v. Hosseini , 679 F.3d 544, 557 (7th Cir. 2012). The government alleges that Mullins waived arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence, but we need not decide whether the government is correct because, viewing the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the ver-No. 14-1701 7

dict, we conclude that the record contains abundant evidence to support the convictions. To prove wire fraud, the gove rnment must establish that there was (1) a scheme to defraud in which the defendant participated, (2) intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wires. 18 U.S.C. § 1343; United States v. Sheneman , 682 F.3d 623, 628 (7th Cir. 2012). Mullins submits that he did not scheme to defraud Cook County. He maintains that he simply expedited time-sensitive contracts and broke no county rules. And he adds that even if there was a scheme, he didnot participate in it because he did not personally draft proposals or approve the contracts. The jury had more than sufficient reason to disbelieve these assertions.

A fraud scheme exists when there is a willful act to receive, deceive, or cheat to cause financial loss to another. See United States v. Howard , 619 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2010). Here ample evidence establishes that Mullins intended to cheat Cook County out of money. According to the witnesses, Mullins altered proposals and wrote invoices to fit below the $25,000 approval threshold and thereby avoided detection by the Board of Commissioners. He then helped the vendorsreceive payments before they completed any work and despite never delivering services commensurate with the county’s payments to them. By he lping to arrange for these proposals, invoices, and payments for incomplete work, thescheme and Mullins’s participation in it is adequately supported. See Sheneman, 682 F.3d at 629 (finding sufficient evidence where defendant took active role in misleading victim bank). Accordingly, the government adequately proved wire fraud.8 No. 14-1701

To prove bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) the government must show that a public agent solicited “corruptly anything of value” in connect ion with a transaction of $5,000 or more. 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B); see United States v. Blagojevich , No. 11-3853, 2015 WL 4433687, at *4 (7th Cir. July 21, 2015); United States v. Robinson , 663 F.3d 265, 271 (7th Cir. 2011). An agent acts corruptly when he understands that the payment given is a bribe, reward, or gratuity. See United States v. Hawkins , 777 F.3d 880, 882 (7th Cir. 2015). To attack the sufficiency of the briber y conviction, Mullins raises two arguments, but they are both meritless.

Mullins first contends that he did not act corruptly because, he says, other departments requested the work andapproved the contracts from the vendors. But Mullins himself testified that his input and recommendation were important in choosing vendors. An d he used his influence corruptly. As already observed, Mullins altered the invoices to remain under $25,000 and kept hi mself in the approval process. Later, when the vendors received their fees, Mullins required and received cash kickbacks under the ruse, as Peeryexplained, that the kickback payments were for “subcontractors.” In reality the payments were given to Mullins to secure future awards from Cook County, as Render testified. Thus, jurors could infer that the cash that Mullins receivedfrom vendors was a reward—a bribe—for buying his influence in obtaining their contracts.

Mullins also contends that he cannot be convicted of bribery because the government produced no evidence of quid pro quo, such as the vendors receiving something in return for the bribe. But they did receive something—their contracts. In any case, evidence of quid pro quo is not neces-No. 14-1701 9

sary to establish a viol ation of § 666(a)(1)(B). See United States v. Boender, 649 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Gee , 432 F.3d 713, 714–15 (7th Cir. 2005). Thus, the bribery counts are intact.

B. Prosecutorial MisconductMullins next argues that the convictions should be overturned because he identifies th ree instances of prosecutorial misconduct: suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, and making improper statements during closing arguments. We take these contentions in turn. Mullins argues that the prosecutor twice elicited perjured testimony at trial. He contends that Mullins’s secretary, Goldsmith, testified falsely abou t his initials on documents. And, he maintains Borner lied about whether he had reported to the prosecution any threats to shut down his wife’s business. Both arguments are unpersuasive. Goldsmith’s testimony was not perjurious. She merely testified to her lay opinion that the initials on the proposalsbelonged to Mullins. Whether or not her opinion was correct, her testimony was permissible. See United States v. Tipton , 964 F.2d 650, 655 (7th Cir. 1992) (lay witness may give opinion about handwriting); United States v. Binzel , 907 F.2d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1990) (same). Borner’s situation is more complicated, but his testimonywas not perjurious either. It is true that during cross examination he denied reporting to the prosecution that anyone had threatened to shut down his wife’s day care business, even though the prosecution had disclosed before trial the fact of his recent report. But the government solicited from Borner on redirect the clarifica tion that three years earlier,10 No. 14-1701

when the threats were suppose dly made, he had not known of or reported them to the prosecution; only when he learned about the threats shortl y before trial did he report them. The prosecution thus properly elicited truthful and complete testimony, see United States v. Guadagno , 970 F.2d 214, 219–20 (7th Cir. 1992), ensuring that the jury had all truthful information before it when making its decision. Mullins next argues that the prosecution intimidated Peery into testifying against hi m. An allegation of witness intimidation requires proof that a witness was persuaded into providing false testimony to the court through physical force or threats. See United States v. Holt , 460 F.3d 934, 938 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Balzano , 916 F.2d 1273, 1291 (7th Cir. 1990). During cross-examination Peery said that the agent who had questioned him du ring the pretrial investigation was “gruff” and that the questioning process itself was “intimidating.” Peery, however, also stated that he testifiedtruthfully and did so to obtain the terms of his deferredprosecution agreement. Given the record as a whole, Mullins has not proven that force or improper threats impelled false testimony. Mullins’s final contention concerns the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument. He asserts that the prosecution misstated Crawford’s testimony about the County’s practice concerning advanced payment before completed work. Misstatements of evidence during closing argument can be improper, see United States v. Wolfe , 701 F.3d 1206, 1214 (7th Cir. 2012), but it is rarely reversible error, see United States v. Anderson , 450 F.3d 294, 300 (7th Cir. 2006). Here the prosecutor argued that every witness had said that Cook County did not pay on service contracts in advance ofNo. 14-1701 11

completed work, even though Crawford had testified that the County could do so but that the practice was unusual.To determine whether the misstatement prejudiced Mullins and requires reversal we consider whether (1) Mullins invited the remark, (2) the ju dge offered curative instructions, (3) the defense could have rebutted the misstatement, and (4) the weight of the evid ence against Mullins is nonetheless strong. See United States v. Durham , 766 F.3d 672, 685 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Myers , 569 F.3d 794, 799 (7th Cir. 2009). Looking at the record as a wh ole, we are confident that the misstatement did not prejud ice Mullins. First, the defense immediately objected to the prosecutor’s misstatement. Second, the judge promptly issued a curative instruction, reminding the jurors that thei r recollection of the evidence controlled. Third, the prosecutor later altered the statement, correctly telling the jury that Cr awford had testified that it was sound practice for Cook County to pay vendors after the vendors completed work. Fourth, this misstatement came against the backdrop of the abundant evidence showing thatMullins solicited bribes for contracts and fraudulently altered vendors’ proposals and invoices through email to avoid detection. Thus, this one minor misstatement did not infect the trial with unfairness such that a new trial is necessary. See United States v. Johnson , 655 F.3d 594, 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2011) (upholding decision not to grant new trial when single misstatement, which wa s immediately corrected, was given by the prosecution du ring opening statement); United States v. McMath , 559 F.3d 657, 667–68 (7th Cir. 2009) (findingthat improper remarks at trial when combined with a curative jury instruction did not affect trial fairness).12 No. 14-1701

III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district

court.