F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 1 6, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1472 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00246 -CR- CB UN IT ED ST AT ES OF AME RICA Plaintiff-Appellee,

ve rs us FREEMAN E. JOCKIS CH, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u th e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 16, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , B L A CK

and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T he D ef en dant w as c onvi ct ed

in fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt of vari ous m ai l f

ra ud2

ch ar ge s and a

ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ion , arg uin g, a m ong oth er thi ngs, ins uf

fi ci en cy of th e e v i d en ce an di m

p ro p erju ry i n s tru ct i o n s . We c o n cl u d e t h at th e D ef en d an t ’s cl ai m s ar e in su ffi ci en t t o warran t re ve rs al an d a ffi rm hi s co nv ic ti on on all co un ts . I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND D ur ing the e ar ly

199 0s, F re em anJoc kis chow ne d Jo ck isc h Auto m at ic Sp ri nkl er , ac om

pany li ce nse d to ins ta ll fi re spr ink le rs in co m m er ci al bui ldi ngs in A la bam a. I n 19 95, Joc kis chsto ppe d r unni ng the c om

pany and b eg anw orkin g w ith Re ed F ir e Pr ote ct ion , ac om

pany that i nst al le d f

ir e spr ink le rs in publ ic and p ri va te build ings u nder renovation or const ruction in th e Mobile, A labam a, are a but that, at the ti m e, did

not it se lf pos se ss a pe rm it to i nst al l sp ri nkl er s. I n r et ur n f or the use of his spr ink le r pe rm it, a s w el l a s e ngi ne er ing w ork, Joc kis chw as pa id a portio n of th e p ro fit s o f Ree d F ire Pro te ct io n. In199 2, Joc kis chw as e le ct ed Co unty Co m m iss ion er of D istri ct T w o in Mob ile . T he Co m

m iss ionpr ovi de s f

or the sa fe ty

and w el fare of

the c iti ze ns b y adm ini ste ri ng a

bud ge t and d el ive ri ng p ubl ic se rv ic es to the c om m uni ty . A s part

of his job as Com

m issio ner, Jockisch was required to com plete state-m andated ethics fo rm s de ta ili ng h is p er sona l f inanc es , inc lud ing any

e co nom ic int er es ts h e ha d w ith busi ne sse s. Be tw ee n 19 97 and 2 002, Re ed F ir e Pr ote ct ionbe gan bi ddi ng and w orkin g on3

publ ic proj ects in Mobile Count y , including th e construction of a new c ount y office bui ldi ng ( the Mi ch ae l S quare pr oj ec t) and the c onstru ct ionand r en ovatio n of pub lic sc hool bui ldi ngs. I n hi s c ap ac ity a s C om m iss ion er , Joc kis chvot ed on the bud ge ts an d hi ri ng o f ge ne ra l c ontra ct or s f or the Mi ch ae l S quare pr oj ec t, and v ote d on funding allocations for the Mobile Coun ty School Board construction p roj ects at nin e dif fe re nt l oc at ion s. R ee d F ir e Pr ote ct ionw as hir ed a s asub co ntr ac tor

f or tho se pr oj ec ts, and a s ar es ult of Re ed ’ s in vol ve m ent i n th e co nstru ct ionand Joc kis ch ’ s r el at ion shi p w ithRe ed , Joc kis chr ec ei ve d si gni fi cant f inanc ia l be ne fi ts re la te d to the c onstru ct ionc ontra ct s. Joc kis chdid thi s, the G ove rn m en t a lle ge d, w hil e fa ili ng t o f

ull y and h one stl y

dis cl ose his r el at ion shi p to Re ed F ir e Pr ote ct ion in th e et hi cs an d e co no m ic in te res t fo rm s h e was req ui redto co m pl et e. Jockisch was indicted bya grand j ury in Novem

ber 2003, which w as fo llo w ed by asup er se din g in dic tm en t i n F eb ru ar y 200 4. T he sup er se din g ind ic tm en t a lle ge d Jo ck isc h’ s f inanc ia l ga ins f

ro m Re ed F ir e Pr ote ct ion ’ s c ontra ct s an d Jo ck isc h’ s f

ai lur e to d isc los e his inv olv em en t w iththe c om pany c onst itu te d a schem e to defra

ud the citizens of Mobil e County of the right to his h onest services as aCo m m iss ion er in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 1 341 an d 13 46. T he ind ic tm en t ch ar ge d f our se parate hon es t se rv ic es m ai l f ra ud s ch em es : ( 1) c ount s O ne thr ough Fi ve ( the Mi ch ae l S quare pr oj ec t) ( 2) c ount s S ix thr oughS ixt ee n ( the sc hool4

pr oj ec ts) ( 3) c ount s S ev en te enthr oughT w en ty ( fi lin g f al sif ie d e thi cs f

orm s) , and (4 ) co unt s T w en ty -O ne thr oughT w en ty -F our ( co nve rt ing c am

pa ignf unds to personal use). T he first three schem es alleged that Jockisch us ed the United States Postal Service to rece ive checks from Reed F ire Pr otection for paym ents for w ork the com pany perform ed on projec ts Jockis ch had voted on , a s well a s to m ail ethics an d e co nom ic int er es t f

orm s he ha d f

ill ed out w iththe int en t t o m isl ea d th e publ ic an d h id e h is rel at io ns hi p wi th Reed . T he f ourth s ch em e al le ge d th at Joc kis chha d c onve rt ed

f unds he ld i n hi s cam pa igna cc ount

f or pe rs ona l us e. T he G ove rn m en t c la im ed thi s c onst itu te d m ai l fraud beca

use to hid e his conversion of cam paign fund s, Jockisch had m isr ep re se nte d th e am ount of c am pa ign -r el at ed

c ontri but ion s he r ec ei ve d w he n he filled out state-m andated summ aries of c ontribu tions and expenditu res which wer e se nt th ro ug h t he m ai l. F i n a l l y, t h e Go v e rn men tc h ar g e di nc o u n t s Tw e n ty- F i v e th r o u g h Tw e n tyEight that for tax y ears 1998-2001 , Jockish had willfully under-reported his total inc om e w he n f

ili ng h is i nc om e ta x r et

ur ns i n vi olatio n of

26 U . S. C. § 72 06. T he G ove rn m en t c la im ed

that Jo ck isc h ha d do ne so d es pit e the f ac t tha t he kne wand be lie ve d hi s a ct

ua l i nc om e w as sub stanti al ly in ex ce ss o f w ha t he r ep orte d onthe returns .5

A t the c los e of

the G ove rn m en t’ s c as e, the de fe ndant m ove d f or j udgm en t of ac qui tta l ona ll co unt s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti ons as to co unt s O ne thr oughT w en ty

and T w en ty -F ive thr oughT w en ty -E igh t, but r es er ve d r uli ng o n th e cam pa ig n fi na nc e m ai l fr au d s ch em e (co un ts Twent y -On e th ro ug h Twen ty-Fou r). Fo llo w ing the pr es en ta tio n of a ll ev ide nc e, the de fe ndant r en ew ed his m oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l ona ll co unt s. T his ti m e, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on with regar d to the cam

paign finance counts but denied th e m otion as to all other co unt s. Shortly before c losin g argum ents, the district court announced th at it wa s re co nsi de ri ng i ts r

uli ng w ithr eg ar d to the m oti on f or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l f

or c o u n t s S i x th r o u g h S i x t e e n( th e s c h o o l p r o je c t s ) . Th e c a s e wa s g i v e nt o th e ju ry, w hic h r et ur ne d ave rd ic t of

not gui lty on c ount s O ne thr oughF ive , but gui lty a s to al l t he rem ai ni ng co un ts . T he dis tr ic t c ourt, c onc er ne d a bout the suf fi ci en cy of e vid en ce sup portin g co unt s S ix thr oughS ixt ee n, a ske d th e part ie s to br ie f the f oll ow ing iss ue s: ( 1) w he the r the re w as suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce pr es en te d f ro m w hic h th e j ur

y c oul d have determ ined that the defendant too k discretionary action in his o fficial c apacity that be ne fi tte d hi s un dis cl ose d pe rs ona l i nte re st and ( 2) w he the r the de fe ndant c oul d sti ll be c onvi ct ed

on those c ount s if

the re w as no e vid en ce that he too k6

discretionary

action in his o fficial c apacity that benefitted his un disclos ed personal int er es t. The district court’ s concern arose bec ause the defense had presented ev ide nc e at

tr ia l tha t the A la

bam a le gis la tur e ha d or de re d th e Ci ty of Mo bil e an d th e Co un ty to g iv e th e Sch oo l Bo ardfun ds in ord er t o a ll ev ia te it s fi na nc ia l b ur de n. The def endant claim ed that his vo tes on the Comm issio n wer e theref ore

“ m an da tor

y , ” not dis cr et ion ar

y , and tha t i n th e al te rn at ive , the f unds a llo cate d by the Co m m iss ionw er e use d f

or ope ratio na l e xpe nse s, not c onstru ct ionpr oj ec ts. T he dis tr ic t c ourt answ er ed it s f ir st que sti on i n th e af

fi rm at ive , f

ind ing the j ury could have determ ined that “ [a] rea sonable cons truction of the evidence is that by he lpi ng t o ke ep the sc hool sy ste m ope ratin g, the Co unty

he lpe d to ke ep the Sc hool Bo ar d’ s c onstru ct ionpr oj ec ts a fl oa t. S inc e the de fe ndant’ s c om pany w as a subcon tractor on a num

ber of those proje cts, the def endant also benefitted.” O rder of July 19, 2004 at 8. T he court dism issed the secondissue as m oot. The result was to a ff irm the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t t o c onvi ct

on c ount s S ix thr oughS ixt ee n. Joc kis ch ’ s a

ppe al s r ai se s f

ive iss ue s f

or thi s c ourt: ( 1 ) wh e th e r

th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’s f

a i l u r e t o i n s tr

u c tth e ju ry o nth e “ mat e r i a l i ty” el em en t of

m ai l f ra ud i s pl ai n e rr or ; (2) whether the evidence of the def endant’ s discretionary

action as Com

m issio nerUnder plain err or re view, the de fenda nt has the burde n of demonstrating ( 1) er ror f rom 1 the lower court’s a ction (2) that wa s plain, clea r, and obvious (3) that aff ecte d his substantial rig hts. I f these thr ee pr ong s are satisfied, the de fenda nt must t hen show that the e rror (4) a ffe cted the fa irness, integ rity , or public re putation of the judicial proc eeding s. 7 be ne fi tti ng h is p er sona l f inanc ia l i nte re sts is suf

fi ci en t t o su sta in a

c onvi ct ionon co unt s S ix thr oughS ixt ee n; (3 ) w he the r the e vid en ce of m ai lin g of

the c he ck s r el at ed

to Sc hool Bo ar d c ontra ct s is s uf fi ci en t t o su sta in a

c onvi ct ionon c ount s S ev enthr oughS ixt ee n; (4 ) w he the r co unt s S ix, S ev en , and E igh t are ti m e- barr ed by the f ive -y ear statut e of lim itatio ns; (5) and w hether the sentences for the ta x count con viction s shou ld be reconsidered if t he m ai l fr au d c ou nt s ar e o ve rtu rn ed . II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Ch al le nge s to state m en ts o r om iss ion s inaj ur y ins tr uc tio n w hic h w er e not m ad e be fo re the tr ia l c ourt are r ev ie w ed f or pla in e rr or . Joh nsonv. U nit ed S ta te s, 520 U.S . 461, 466-68, 117 S.C t. 1544, 1548-49 (19 97); United States v. Meester , 762 F.2d 867 , 879-80 (11 Cir. 1985 ). A n a ppe al a tta ck ing the suf

fi ci en cy of th 1 ev ide nc e is a

que sti on o f lawto be r ev ie w ed de nov o. T he te st i s whe the r– w itha ll reasonable infere nces and credibility choices m ade in the governm ent’ s favor–a re as ona ble tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d c onc lud e that the e vid en ce e sta bli she s gu ilt

be y ond aThere fore we de cline to addr ess def endant’ s fourth g round for appea l–the statute of 2 limit ations challeng e. 8 reas on ab le do ub t. Un it edSta te s v . Mil es , 29 0 F .3d13 41 , 13 55 (11 Cir . 20 02 ). th A n a ppe al r el y ing on the statut e of li m itatio ns i s ac ha lle nge a lle gin g de fe ct s inthe ind ic tm en t. B ec au se thi s c ha lle nge is be ing r ai se d f or the f ir st t im e in this appe al , it is w ai ve d. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ram ir ez , 324 F . 3d 1 225, 122 7- 28 ( 11 Ci r. 200 3) th (holdin g that a statute of lim itations defense r aised for the fir st tim e during trial wa s waived, construing a previous version of Federal Rule of Crim inal Procedure 12, that wa s not su bstantiv ely differ ent from

the curre nt version). 2 III. DISC USSION A. The ab se nc e o f an in st ru ct io n o n “ m at eri al it y ” b efo re t he jury. T he G ove rn m en t c harg ed Joc kis chund er

18 U . S. C. §§ 1 341 an d 13 46 w itha

“ sc he m e or

art if ic e to d ef ra ud” the c iti ze ns o f Mob ile Co unty of the ir r igh t t o hi s

“ honest s ervices. ” T he Suprem e Court has held that “ m ateriality of falsehood is an el em en t of

the f ed er al m ai l f

ra ud, w ir e fr au d, and b an k f ra ud s ta tut es . ” N ed er

v. United States , 527 U.S . 1, 25, 119 S.C t. 1827, 1841 (199 9). Materiality is therefore cl earl y an e le m en t tha t m

ust be pr ove n to the j ur

y in or de r to o bta in a

c onvi ct ionon the se c harg es . O n a

ppe al , Joc kis chc la im s th at the j udge ’ s f

ai lur e to s pe ci fi ca llyThe pa rties agree that J ockisch did not prese rve a n objection to the instruction in the 3 district court. 9 instruct the jury

on the elem ent of “ m ateriality ” constituted p lain error. 3 T o a ddr es s th e de fe ndant’ s c la im , w e loo k f ir st t o th e pr ec ise ins tr

uc tio ns given at trial. T he j ury

in Jockis ch’ s case w as told that th e G overnm ent was re qui re d to pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t: [T he ] D ef en dant k now ing ly de vis ed asc he m e to f

ra udul en tly de pr ive the publ ic of the int an gib le r igh t of

hon es t se rv ic es a s c harg ed . T ha t the D ef en dant d id s o w ill fu lly

and w ithan inte nt t o de fr au d and tha t the D ef en dant u se d th e U nit ed

S ta te s P ost al S er

vic e by m ai lin g or

c au sin g to be m ai le d so m e m atte r or

thi ng f or the pur pose of e xe cu tin g th e sc he m e to de frau d. Tria l Tran sc rip t at 10 90 . T he j udge ’ s in str

uc tio ns t o th e j ur or s di d no t sp ec if ic al ly de fi ne the c onc ep t of “ m at er ia lity

of f al se hood . ” T he ins tr

uc tio ns w er e, how ev er , vir tua lly ave rb at im reci ta ti on of t he 11 Cir cu it ’s 20 03 Offen se Pat te rn Ju ry Ins tru ct io n Nu m

be r 50 .2. th Moreover, the district judge defined the term s in the above in struction in greater de ta il fo r the j ur

y . H e de sc ri be d a“ sc he m e” a s “ any plan or c our se of a ct ion int en de d to de ce ive or

c he at som eo ne , ” an d sa id tha t “ to a ct w ithint en t t o de fr au d m eans t o a ct

kno w ing ly

and w iththe spe ci fi c int en t t o de ce ive som eo ne or din ar ily f o r th e p u r p o s e o f c au s i n g s o me f

i n an c i a l l o s s t o an o th e r

o r b r i n g i n g ab o u ts o me fin an ci al ga in to on e’s se lf.” Trial Tran sc rip t at 10 90 -9 1.10

In United State s v. Fe rn, 155 F. 3d 13 18 (11 Cir. 1998 ), this court reviewe d th a tr ia l c ourt’ s f

ai lur e to s pe ci fi ca lly

ins tr uc t a j ur y on m at er ia lity

in a ca se inv olv ing a de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ionund er 42 U . S. C. § 71 43( c) (2 )( A ) fo r know ing ly m ak ing fal se m at eri al st at em en ts in do cu m en ts fil edin acco rd an ce wi th th e Cl ean Air Act . InF er n, w e he ld, “ T he j ur

y ' s f ind ing that F er

n a ct ed ‘ know ing ly ’ in thi s c as e is, in our vie w , so c los el y

r el at ed to the m at er ia lity

iss ue that i t i s f

unc tio na lly

e qui va le nt to a m at er ia lity

f ind ing . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt' s f ai lur e to p ro pe rl y de sc ri be the e le m en ts o f a fa lse state m en t of fe nse und er

se ct ion741 3( c) (2 )( A ), if error , w as harm less in thi s particular ca se.” Id. at 1329. The sam e rationale applies in this c as e. F or

the j ur y to co nvi ct

Joc kis chof

the c harg ed

of fe nse s, it ha d to f ind that he “ know ing ly

de vis ed asc he m e to f

ra udul en tly de pr ive the pub lic of

the int an gib le r igh t of

hon es t se rv ic es . ” T his w as suf fi ci en tly c los e to a

f ind ing of m at er ia lity

that any e rr or in fa ili ng t o in str

uc t onm at er ia lity

did not a ff ec t the su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of J oc ki sc h, an d t he refo re d idno t ri se to th e le ve l o f pl ai n e rro r. Mor eo ve r, both part ie s m ad e cl osi ng arg um en ts t o th e j ur y that f oc use d on the iss ue of

m at er ia lity . T he G ove rn m en t e m pha siz ed that Jo ck isc h’ s f

ai lur e to dis cl ose his r el at ion shi p to Re ed F ir e Pr ote ct ionw as asig nif ic ant om iss ion , ar gui ng tha t whe n he “ sig ne d th is [ fi nanc ia l di sc los ur e fo rm ] und er oa th and h e sw ears and a ff

irm s, that m eans s om ethin g, or it sho uld . . . . W e shou ld e xpe ct j ust a11

little bit m or e fr om

som eo ne w e’ re pay ing out of our ta x do llars . ” T ri al T ransc ri pt at 1020. In its closing , the def ense claim ed that the relationship betwee n Jockis ch an d R ee d F ir e Pr ote ct ionw as not hid de n f ro m the pub lic and tha t the om iss ionon the dis cl osur e fo rm

w as m eanin gle ss: “ A ny

body that w as int er es te d inRe ed a t a ll or any bodyinterested in Jockisch at all couldhave gone out th ere and seen them do in g t he workth atth ey

di d.” Trial Tran sc rip t at 10 55 . U nde r pla in e rr or

r ev ie w , the de fe ndant h as the bur de n of pr ovi ng n ot o nly plain and ob viou s error, but error a ffec ting h is sub stantial rights that also affe cted the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of

the j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. Joh nson , 520 U.S . at 466-67 , 117 S. Ct. at 1548-49 ; see also United States v. O lano, 507 U. S. 725, 736 , 113 S . Ct . 177 0, 177 9 ( 1993 ) (h old ing that c ourts o f ap pe al sho uld onl y co rr ec t a f or fe ite d e rr or

a t the tr ia l l ev el “ in those c ir cum stanc es in w hic h a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e wou ldot he rwis e res ul t” ). D ef en dant w as una

ble to poi nt t o any

m anne r in whic h he w as sub stanti al ly adve rs el y a ff ec te d by the e rr or . N o on e sugg es te d th at m at er ia lity

w as not r el ev an t, an d th e fa ct

that the arg um en ts o f co unse l f oc use d onthat ve ry

iss ue – i . e. , the signi ficance of the failure to fully disclose conflict of interest inform ation – m akes it unl ike ly

that the abse nc e of

an in str uc tio n a dve rs el y

a ff ec te d D ef en dant’ s r igh ts, es pe ci al ly in lig ht o f the c los el y

r el at ed ins tr uc tio n. N o m atte r howthe D ef en dantThe de fenda nt’s third g round of a

ppeal a rgues that insufficie nt evidence was pre sented 4 l i n k i n g th e c h ec k s s en tt o J o ck i s ch wi thth e S ch o o l Bo ar d p ro j ec t s fr o mco un t s S ev enth ro u gh Six teen. Since the evidenc e demonstrated J ockisch wor ked on a numbe r of pr ojects for Reed tot a lly unre late d to the sc ho ol c on str uc tio n p ro

je c ts, the de fe nd ant c onte nd s th at th e re is insufficient e vidence linking the c hecks to the sc hool construction work. The e vidence sug g ested that ra ther than pa

ying him on a pr oject-by-projec t basis, Reed Fire Protection paid Jockisch a salar y or lump sum every

two or three months. The chec ks need not have include d a notation in the subject line de tailing the pur pose of the pa

y ments for the jury to determine the money

was tied to the school c onstruction work. We conc lude that the evidenc e wa s sufficient f

or a jury to find that the money

paid by Reed to Jockisch via the che cks wa s r e late d to the sc ho ol p ro je c ts. 12 f r a mes th e i s s u e , n o “ mi s c arr i a g e o f ju s t i c e ” o r

d a mag e t o th e “ f

a i rn e s s , i n t e g r i ty, o r p ub l i c r ep u t at i o no f ju d i ci al p ro ce ed i n g s ” w o u l dre s u l tb y up h o l d i n g J o ck i s ch ’s co nvi ct ion . T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a lle ge d f ai lur e to s pe ci fi ca lly

ins tr uc t the j ur

y on the concept of m ateriality does not rise to th e level of plain err or. As a result, r elief m us t b e d en ie d. B . T h e “N o D i s c r e t i o n ary A c t i o n ” c l a i m. T he D ef en dant’ s se co nd g ro und fo r ap pe al a tta ck s th e suf fi ci en cy of the ev ide nc e pr es en te d a t tri al . S pe ci fi ca lly , Joc kis charg ue s th at the e vid en ce on co unt s S ix thr oughS ixt ee n ( the S ch ool Bo ar d c onstru ct ionc harg es ) w as not sufficient to sustain the conviction because he did not m isuse his office to further his pe rs ona l i nte re sts . 4 A n “ hone st s er

vic es ” fr au d oc curs w he n an of fi ci al “ se cr et ly

m ak es his de ci sio n ba se d onhis ow n pe rs ona l i nte re sts [ the re by ] de fr au d[ ing ] the pub lic of13

his ho nest services.” United State s v. L opez-L ukis, 102 F.3d 116 4, 1169 (11 Cir. th 1997 ). T he de fe ndant c la im s th e A la bam a le gis la tur e’ s a

ppr opr ia tio n re qui re m en t–whic h or de re d th e Co m m iss ionto giv e m one y

to the Mo bil e Co unty School Board–dem onstrates that there wa s no nexu s betwee n Jockis ch’ s role as Com m issio ner and his receipt of pay m ent for engineering work f or Reed F ire P r o t e c t i o n ’s s ub c o n tr a c to nth e s c h o o l c o n s tr u c t i o np r o

j e c t s . B e c au s e th e A l ab a ma legislature required the County to allocate the funds to the School Board, Jockisch ar gue s th at

he too k no dis cr et ion ar

y a ct ionba se d onhis ow n pe rs ona l i nte re sts , and the re fo re the e vid en ce w as ins uf fi ci en t t o c onvi ct

him of m ai l f ra ud o n th e sc hool pr oj ec t c harg es . Joc kis ch ’ s c ha lle nge c om es to us a s ac ha lle nge to the suf fi ci en cy of the ev ide nc e. T hus w e as sum e al l r ea sona ble inf er en ce s and que sti ons of

c re dib ili ty

in favor of the governm ent. T he defendant’ s onlyevidence suppo rting his claim that he did no t exercise discre tionary action with regar d to the state-m andated appropriations wa s a w itness, whose cr edibilit y wa s weighed by

the j ury . Evidence of the “ m an da tor

y ” na tur e of

the paym en ts t o th e Sc hool Bo ar d w as pr es en te d by the de fe nse thr oughCh ar le s W ilc ox, the f orm er a ssi stant s upe ri nte nde nt f or busin ess operations for the Mobile Coun ty School Board. He testified at trial re gard ing the Co unty

Co m m iss ion ’ s annua l c ontri but ion s to the Bo ar d and theTh e de fe ns e a lso c la ime d th at th e fu nd s a llo c ate d to the Sc ho ol B oa rd fr om t he County 5 we re lim ite d to be ingus e d f or “ op e ratio na l e xpe ns e s, ” but th e e vid e nc e do e s n ot s up po rt thi s contention. Wilcox testified that the County ’s contributions wer e plac ed in the School B oard’ s g e ne ra l f un d a nd that, whil e the g e ne ra l f

un d mo ne y

wa s n ot u se d f

or c on str uc tio n p ro

je c ts, it c ou ld have be en used f

or such a purpose. He further

testified that money

from the g ener al fund was sometimes combined w ith capital fund money to repa ir and maintain the sc hools. Trial Transc ript at 788-89. J ockisch a lso sugg ests that beca use the County

Commi ssion and the School Boa rd ar e 6 e nti re ly se pa rate e nti tie s, and

be c a us e the Sc ho ol B oa

rd us e d a c omp e tit ive bid din gpr oc e ss t o se le c t c ontr a c tor s f

or its c on str uc tio n p ro

je c ts, Jock isc h’ s a c tio ns a s a Commis sio n me mbe r c ou ld no t ha ve be ne fi tte d h is p e rs on a l inte re sts . T his argume nt i s n ot p e rs ua siv e be c a us e the jur

y c ou ld have f ound that althoug h J ockisch did not know which g ener al contra ctor would be selec ted or whether that contra ctor would e mploy Reed F ire Protec tion as a sub-c ontrac tor, J ockisch kne w the a pp ro pr iatio ns wo uld

e nh anc e the B oa

rd ’s fi na nc ia l po sit ion , in c re a sin gthe lik e lih oo d it would undertake construc tion projects and the likelihood his company would g et work. 14 Bo ar d’ s us e of

tho se f unds . W ilc ox t es tif

ie d th at the c ontri but ion s be gan in199 1 or 199 2 w he n th e sc hool sy ste m w as de ep ly

in de bt and the sc hool sup er int en de nt was th reat en in g t o c lo se th e sc ho ol s af te r a t ax refe ren du m

fai le d a t t he po ll s. To pul l the S ch ool Bo ar d ou t of de bt, the state le gis la tur e or de re d th e Ci ty of Mo bil e and the Countyeach to contribute $1.2 m illion annually to the school sy stem

for a pe ri od o f te n y ears . 5 A ft er c ar ef ul c onsi de ratio n of

Joc kis ch ’ s arg um en t tha t he ha d no dis cr et ion w ithr es pe ct

to the $1. 2 m ill ionannua l a llo tm en ts t o th e Sc hool Bo ar d and thus could no t have intended to serve his own personal interests by his vot es, w e re

j ect his argum ent for a num

ber of r easons. A ccording to W ilcox, the County wa s 6

“ or de re d by

the S ta te of

A la bam a to m ak e the paym en ts. I f the y ha d r ef use d to15

vot e, the y ’ d have be enin tr oubl e w iththe S ta te . ” T ri al T ransc ri pt at 80 8. B ut W ilc ox a lso te sti fi ed

that whil e the Co unty

Co m m iss ion er s vo te d to m ak e the annual paym ents of $1.2 m illion , the C ity of Mobile, which was operating under the sam e m andate from

the state, successfully

negotiated ou t of the 10-y ear paym ent plan by

pay ing th e Sc hool Board $4 m illion up front. T rial T ranscript at 788, 801 . N o e vid en ce w as pr es en te d by e ith er party that su gge ste d th at

the Countywa s not free to try to structure a sim ilar deal in order to avoidannual paym en ts t o th e Sc hool Bo ar d. B ec au se the Co unty Co m m iss ion , inc lud ing Joc kis ch , ha d di sc re tio n to a tte m pt t o ne got ia te le sse r paym en ts b ut d id n ot ex er ci se that di sc re tio n, Joc kis ch ’ s arg um en t tha t he la ck ed dis cr et ionis un de rm in ed . Ina ddi tio n, the e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al r ev ea le d th at Joc kis chvot ed

to au tho ri ze aone -t im e $5 m ill ionpaym en t f ro m the Co unty

to the S ch ool Bo ar d in August 200 1. T his $5 m illion vote was in addition to the $1.2 m illion annual al lo tm en t an d c le arl y

was n ot “ req ui red ” o f th e Co un ty Comm is si on ers . Also, the e vidence offere d by the Governm ent in sup port of the Michael Square c harg es ( Co unt s O ne thr oughF ive ) re fl ec ts o n th e de fe ndant’ s st at e of m ind w ithr eg ar d to the sc hool c onstru ct ionpr oj ec ts. L ar ry W ette rm ar

k, the Co unty attor ne y , te sti fi ed

that he c onf

ro nte d Jo ck isc h a

bout the pot en tia l c onf

lic t of16

int er es t be tw ee n Jo ck isc h’ s w ork f or Re ed F ir e Pr ote ct ionand h is w ork a s a Com m issio ner on the Michael Square proje ct. Ac cording to We tterm ark, Jockisch im m ed ia te ly c al le d D oug Re ed , his partne r at Re ed F ir e Pr ote ct ion , and t old him to w ith dr awa s su

bc ontra ct or . W ette rm ar

k te sti fi ed

to he ar ing thi s ph one conversation, and to confirm ing with Jockis ch som e tim e af terw ard that Ree d was no lo ng er i nv ol ve d i n t he Mi ch ael Squa re co ns tru ct io n. Ar ea sona

ble j ur y c oul d c onc lud e that Jo ck isc h de ce ive d W ette rm ar k. D oug Reed testified at tr ial that he and Jockisch con tinued th e initial pho ne call af ter W etterm ark had left Jockisch’ s office. During that call, Jockisch su ggested that rathe r than w ith dr aw ing a s su bc ontra ct or , Re ed

F ir e Pr ote ct ionsho uld

c ont inu e to have it s e m

plo y ee s w ork onthe pr oj ec t, but sho uld r eque st tha t the c he ck s f or paym en t be iss ue d to P re ci sio n F ir e Pr ote ct ion , ac om pany ow ne d and o pe rate d by Doug Reed’ s brother. I n Doug Reed’ s words, “ [H ] e [the D efendant] suggest ed doin g it that way

to where – I guess where he couldn’t get tied into it.” T rial T ransc ri pt at 34 9. T he j ur y w as f re e to v ie wthi s te sti m ony a s ar ef le ct ionon Joc kis ch ’ s c re dib ili ty

and, m or e dir ec tly , a s e vid en ce that Jo ck isc h un de rs too d th e nature of his conflict as a County Com m issio ner and co-ow ner of Re ed Fire Pro te ct io n, an d i nt en ti on al ly sou gh t t o c on ceal it s re ve la ti on . A j ury looki ng at the totalityof the evidence could have concluded th at, at17

le as t a ft er 200 0, any

r ev el at ionof

Joc kis ch ’ s c onf

lic t w ithr es pe ct

to the sc hool pr oj ec ts– ei the r by

abst ai nin g f

ro m the vot es or

oth er w ise dis cl osi ng the c onf

lic t t o his colleagues–would have j eopardized Jockisch’s f inancial interests in oth er R eed Fi re P ro te ct ionsub co ntr ac ts, suc h a s th e Mi ch ae l S quare pr oj ec t. E ve n pr ior to that, and prior to 2001 when the clearly discretionary

$5 m illion allocation was vot ed f or the sc hool s, the e vid en ce sho w ed Joc kis chha d ape rs ona l i nte re st i n co nc ea lin g hi s c onf

lic t onthe sc hool pr oj ec ts. R ev ea lin g hi s r el at ion shi p w ith Re ed dur ing that t im e co uld

have j eo pard iz ed

Re ed ’ s a bil ity to bid on the sc hool proje cts or on other county -related proje cts, which would have adversely aff ected Jockisch’s personal incom e. T his evidence, plus the evidence that Jockis ch failed to e xe rc ise his dis cr et ionto atte m pt t o ne got ia te le sse r paym en ts t o th e Sc hool Bo ar d, is suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort the j ur y ’ s r ej ec tio n of

Joc kis ch ’ s “ no di sc ret io n” arg um en t. T his c ourt w ill r ev er se ac onvi ct ionba se d onins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce onl y

if

“ no reasonable trier of f

act could have found gu ilt bey ond a reasonable doub t.” U nit ed S ta te s v. G unn, 369 F . 3d 1 229, 123 4 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) , c er t. de nie d, 125 S. Ct . th 32 4 (2 00 4) . T he e vid en ce de m onstrate d th at ove r a fi ve -y ear pe ri od, Re ed F ir e Pr ote ct ion m ad e ne ar ly

ha lf am ill iondol lars on the sc hool c onstru ct ionpr oj ec ts, and at no tim e during that period d id Jockis ch properly disclose his busin ess interest in ReedBe cause of our disposition of the other f our issues, the fifth issue is dismissed as moot. 7 18 or tell the County

Com m issio n or its m em

bers of his conflict of interest. Jockisch co uld have div es te d hi m se lf

of his int er es t i n R ee d, or

c oul d have pr ope rl y re fl ec te d hi s in te re st o n th e re qui re d e thi cs f orm s, or c oul d have abst ai ne d onthe votes relating to p roj ects in which Ree d and Jocki sch would benefit. But instead ea chti m e he vot ed

f or the appr opr ia tio ns. T he e vid en ce that de fe ndant m ad e no attem pt to renegotiate state-m andated paym ents (as the City of Mobile had don e), his vot es to au tho ri ze the annua l $1 . 2 m ill iona llo tm en ts i nst ea d of abst ai nin g, and his c le ar e xe rc ise of

dis cr et ionin vot ing the $5 m ill ionpaym en t, a s w el l a s th e unr es tr ic te d natur e of

the f unds giv ento the S ch ool Bo ar d, pr es en te d th e j ur y w ith su ffi ci en t ev id en ce upo n wh ic h t o c on vi ctth e d efen da nt . AFFIR MED. 7