## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3964 G EORGE H. R Y AN S R ., Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 10 C5512

—Rebec ca R. Pal lmey er, Ju dge .

On Re m a n d f r om t he Supr em e Co ur t of t he U ni t ed St a t es
A RG UE D J UL Y 20, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 6, 2012

Befo re E AST E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd W OO D a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R O OK, Chi e

f Judg e . G eo rg e R ya n, form er ly Se cre tar y o fS tat e a nd then Go ver nor o fI l l i noi s, was c onvi cted o fvi ol ati ng RI CO ( the Rack ete erI nfl uenced and C or rupt Org ani zati ons A ct) , the m ai l

- f ra ud st atute ,2 N o. 10

- 3964 the Inter nal Reve nue Code, and a l aw f orbi dd i ng l i es to fe der al i nv es ti g at o r s. H i s co nv i ct i o ns an d se nt en ce w ere affir m ed on ap p ea l. U ni t e d Sta tes v. Wa rner, 49 8 F
. 3d 666, rehe aring en ban c d en ied, 506 F. 3 d 5 1 7 ( 7th Cir. 2007), cert. den ied, 553 U
. S. 1064 (2008). The j ud ge tol d the j ury that i t c oul d convi ct Rya n of m ai l fra ud i fhe e itheracc epted br ibes orco nceal ed r ec ei pt o fpa y m en ts tha t cr ea te d a co nfl i ct o fi nt er es t. The theo rybehi nd the seco nd m etho d ofco nvi c ti on was that the s tat e had an i ntangibl e right t o Ryan’ s ho nest se r vi ce s, a nd that s ecr etpa y m en ts i nt er f er ed wi ththe sta te’ s e nj oym ent o fthatr i ght e ven if R ya n did not tak e the m oney i n exchange f or deci si ons over w h i ch he ha d c o nt r o l o n b eh al fo fthe s ta te
. The i ns tr uct i ons we r e a c c u r a t e s t a t e me n t s o fth e l a w u n d e r 1 8 U
. S
. C. §1 34 1 an d §1 34 6, a s th i s co ur t unde r st o o d the mai l

- f r au d offense at the t i m e. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Blo om , 1 4 9 F
. 3d 64 9 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ). B u t in Sk illin g v . U n i t e d S ta tes , 13 0 S. Ct . 2 896, 29 32–3 3 ( 2010 ) , the Suprem e Cour t di sag re ed w i thBlo om . I t hel d that o nl y b riber y or ki ckba cks c a n b e u s e d t o s ho w h o ne s t
- s e r v i c e s fr a ud
. Id
. at29 31. Ry a n the n a s k e d f o r c o l l a t e r a l r e l i e fu nd e r 2 8 U. S
. C. §2 255. He di d no t co nt es t th e l y i ngo r t ax c o nv i ct i o ns but di d chal l enge the m ail-fra ud and RI CO co nvi cti ons. RI CO m ake s i t a cr i m e t o oper ate an o rg ani zation ( here , the s tat e o fI l l i nois ) thr ough a patte rn o fpre dica te cri m es. 18 U
. S. C. §196 2( d). T h e indict m ent a l l ege d that m ai l fra ud s co nsti tuted the p re dica te cri m es; thus a defec t i n the mai l frau d c onv i ct i o ns c o ul d v i ti at e th e RI CO co nvi cti on a s wel l
. The U ni ted S tat es agr eed withN o. 10

- 3964 3 R ya n th at h is pe tit ion w a s t im ely

— w ai vi ng any defense u n d er §2255 (f )

— a n d d i d n o t c o n t e n d th a t th e r e i s an y di ff er en ce b etwee n the s o r t o fr ev i ew a va i l ab l e o n a peti ti on under § 2255 and the ki nd ava i lable o n dir ect ap p ea l. Ski l l i ngarose on d irect app eal, and the C ou rt r emande d w ith i ns tr uct i o ns t o de te r m i ne whethe r the er ro r w as harm l ess . 13 0 S. Ct. at29 34. S ee al so Blac k v. U ni t e d S t a tes , 13 0 S
. Ct. 29 63, 29 70 ( 2010 )
. Ryan a ske d th e d ist ric t c ou rtto en ga ge in h ar m les s-e rro r an aly sis und er§2 255 as w el l
. The U ni ted S tat es did notdi sag re e w i th Ryan that a har m l ess-erro r i nquir y was appropr i at e, tho ug h i t st o ut ly argu ed th atthe e r r o r was i ndeed harm l ess

— as the di str i ct c ourthel d i n a thor ough op inion. 759 F. Sup p . 2d 975 (N
. D
. I ll
. 2010). At o r ala r g um en t th i s co ur t que st i o ne d wh eth erthe sa m e st an dar d s hould b e us ed o n di r ec t appe ala nd col l ate ra l at tack
. W e di re c te d t he par ti es to fi l e s up ple

m en ta l m em or an d a c on c er n in g th at su b je c t . On c e a ga in the Uni t e d S t a t e s f a i l e d t o c o nt e nd tha tthe s t a nd a r ds d iffer. W e con clud ed , how ever, that th e stan d ard s are m at er i al l y di ff er en t, a nd tha t o n c o l l at er alr ev i ew the ap p rop riate qu estion is w he th er t h e eviden ce w as su ffi c i e ntt o c o n v i c tu n d e r th e c o r r e c ti n s t r u c t i o n s . We h eld th at th e re c or d co n ta in s m or e t h an e n ou gh ev ide nc e t o conv i c tR y a n un de r the l e g a l s t a nd a r ds ar tic u lat ed inS k i l l i ng and affirm ed the d istri ct cou rt’s d ecision. 645 F.3d 913 (7th C ir. 2011). T he Sup rem e C ou rt held Rya n’s p etition forcertiorari un ti l i tde c i de d Wo o d v . M ily a rd, 132 S. Ct
. 1826 (2012), w hich p resen ted qu estions conc ernin g a cou rt’s pow er,4 N o. 10

- 3964 i n a c ase co ncer ni ng co l l ate ra l r evi ew o f a cri m i nal co nvi cti o n o r s e nt e nc e , t o de c i de a n a pp e a l o n a g r ound that th e p ro se c u to r d id n ot ad va n c e . T h e o p in ion inWood a r t i c ul a t e s s e v e r a l c o nc l us i o ns : ( 1 ) tha ta c o ur to fa ppeal s i s e nti tl ed to deny co l l ate ra l r el i efo n a pr ocedu ra l g r o und tha t th e pros ecut o r ha s f o r f ei te d b y o ve r l o o k i ng i t, b utn o to n a g r o un d tha tthe p ro secuto r h a s wa i v e d; ( 2) thatthe pow erto deci d e an a p p ealo n a f or f ei ted g r o und s ho ul d b e use d o nl y i n e xc ept i o na l c as es ; a nd ( 3 ) t h at a p ro se c u to r’s co n sid er ed d ec isio n to refr ain f r o m r ai singa known pr o ce dur ali ss ue i s wai ve r . The Court then r em anded Ryan’ s ca se w i th i ns tructi ons to re consi der i n lighto fWood
. 132 S. Ct
. 2099 (2012). W e r ecei ve d posi ti on s tat em ents f ro m the parti es, se e Ci r c ui tR ul e 5 4 , a nd the a pp e a l wa s r e a r g ue d. The U ni ted S tat es ask s us to rei nstat e o ur deci si on of las t y ea r, te llin g u s t h a t, no m at te r w h at it sa id in th e m em or an d u m filed aft er th e first ar gu m en t, itno w agr ees with ever ythi ng we w ro te about the di ff er ence between di re ct a pp ealand col l ate ra l r evi ew under §2 255. I t m ai ntai ns thatthe post
- ar gum ent m em or andu m o f 2011 f or f ei ted, and di d no t w ai ve, the l ega l pri nci ple s add re sse d i n ouro p in ion. The gi st ofthe U ni ted S tat es’ posi ti on i n 201 2 i s that i t j ust di dn ’ t r eal i ze w hat a st ro n g p ro c ed u r a l a r gu m en t ith ad in 2 01 1 a n d w ou ld have ass er ted i t vigo ro usl y had i ts l aw yer s then bee n m or e a stute
. That doe s no t di sti ngui sh o ur s i tuati on f ro m Wood, how ever; there, too, th e state’s law yers a d o p te d th e c ou rtof ap p ea ls’ p os itio n aft er fina lly w aki ng up to the s tr ength ofthe proce du ra l defense.N o. 10

- 3964 5 The S upr eme Cou r t f o und a wai ve r i n Wood bec au se the state kn ew abou t a p oten tial d efense an d told the c o u rt that i t was notas ser ting i t. That’ s e xactl y what happened he r e. The Uni te d S ta te s Att o r ne y l earn ed ato r ala r g um ent that there was a p ot enti alpro ceduralar gum ent, th e n i nf o r med the c o ur t tha t the a r g ume nt wa s no t b ein g a ss er te d . W h y a litiga n t c om es to su c h a d ec isi on i s i rr el evant, and a m i sta ke i n re achi n g a d ec i si on to w ith h old a kn o w n d efe n se d oe s n ot m ak e t h at d ec isi on l ess a w ai ver . Th i s co urt i s nei therautho ri zed nor i ncl i ned to del ve i nt o the del iber ati onalpro cess that p re ceded a deci si on bythe U ni ted S tat es A tto rney ; w e m ust r espectthe deci si on a nnounc ed i n cour t. S ee, e.g ., In re U nited Sta tes , 398 F.3d 6 1 5 ( 7th Cir. 2005); U nite d State s v. Z ingshe im , 3 8 4 F
. 3 d 8 6 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. We ther ef or e turn to the harm l ess - er ro r i nquir y, fra m ed as if th is w er e a d ire c t a p p ea l. T h i s d o e s n o tme a n th a twe hav ea di r ect appea l ; the r ea l di r ec t appe alwas r es o l ved in 2 00 7. Ry anwas s en tence d t o 78 m onths i n pri son on o ne RI CO co unt. This is th e o nl y s en te nc e he i s st i l l s er vi ng . Al l o fthe oth ers

— 6 0

- mo n th s e n t e n c e s o n s e v e n ma i l

- f r a u d c o nvi cti ons , 6 0- m o nth s en te nc es o n thr ee f al se - st at ement counts, and 36- m onth s entenc es on f our tax co unts

— ra n concurr entl y with eac h othe r and w i th the RI CO se ntence, and al l have expi re d
. S ecti on 2 255 al l ows a per son to c on te st on go in g i m p ris on m en t, an d it i s t h e sin gle RI CO s en te nc e th atunde r l i es Ry an’ s i m pr i so nm en t to day
. The j ur y was t o l d tha t, t o c onv ict Ry ano n the RI CO ch ar g e, i t ha d t o fi nd a p at te r n o fc r i m i na l i tyi ncl udi nga t l ea stt wo a ct s o fc r i m i na l mai l fr au d. The6 N o. 10

- 3964 j ury convi cted Ryan on s eve n m ai l

- fra ud co unts, so i fat l eas t t w o ofthes e a re val i d afterSk i l l i ngthe n the R I CO c on vic tio n is va lid as w ell. Ryan’ s chal l enge to expir ed sente nces m ay orm ay not be m o o ta s a t e c hn i c a l ma t t e r . A c o l l a t e r a l a t tack begu n w hile cust od y con tinu es can cont inu e a ft e r w ard to sta ve offco l l ate ra l co nsequences. S ee Spe nc e rv. K em na , 5 2 3 U. S
. 1 , 7

– 1 4 ( 1 9 9 8 )
. R y a n ha s n o ti de nt i fi ed any c ol l ate ra l co nsequences ofthe m ai l

- f ra ud co nvictio n s (s u c h as d ep riv at ion of th e ri g h t t o v ot e o r h old o ffi c e ) tha two ul d n ot equal l y b e r e qu i r e d b y the R I CO convi cti on

— no t to ment ionthe thr ee f al se - st at ement convi cti ons and t h e fo ur t ax co nvi cti ons, wh i ch have not been cha ll en ged
. Ev en on d ir ect ap p eal, cou rts are f r e e t o p r e t e r mi td e c i s i o nab o u tc o n v i c t i o n s p r o d u ci ng c o nc ur r e nts e nt e nc e s , wh e n the e xt r a c o nv i c t i o ns do no t ha ve c um ul at i ve e ff ec ts
. As a pr ac ti ca lmatt er, the concurr ent- sente nce doctr i ne w as abr oga ted f or d i re ct appe alwhenCo ng r es s i m po se d a s pec i ala ss es sment o f$ 50 ( no w $1 00 ) f o r e ac h s epa r at e f el o ny c o nv icti o n. Se e R a y v . U nited Sta tes , 4 8 1 U. S
. 7 3 6 ( 1987 ) ; 18 U. S
. C. §301 3( a) ( 2)
. A co l l ate ra l at tackunder §2 241, § 22 54 , o r §225 5 co ntest s only custo dy, however, and not fi nes orspeci alas ses sm ents. A n att em pt to deci de on co l l ate ra l r evi ew wh ether e ach of th e sev en m ail-fr au d c on vic tio n s w as va lid w ou ld sm ack of an advi sor y o pini on

— som eth ing th at no w aiver, h ow ev erdel iber ate , can author i ze. Ryan has notar gued th atthe di st r i ctj udg e woul d ha ve give n a l o wer s en te n c e on the RI CO co unt had she be l i eve d, say, thatN o. 10

- 3964 7 onl y f our ofthe m ai l

- f rau d co nvi cti ons re prese nted b rib es, and the othe r thre e r epres ented undisc l ose d confl i cts ofi nter est
. A fter a l l, a dist ri ct j ud ge m ay base a s entence o n est abl i shed m i sco nd uct wh ethero r not tha tmi s c o nd uc th a s l e d t o a c o nv i c t i o n. We the re f or e do not thi nk tha tWood po ses an o bs ta cl e to c o nfi ni ngo ur att en tio n today t o the v al i dity o fthe RI CO co unt, though we ad d that, bef or e Rya n’s m ai l

- f ra ud se ntences expir ed, the dist ri ct j ud ge gave c ar eful co nsi derat i on to ea c h o ft h e s ev en an d fou n d all of th em va lid afterSk i l l i ng . The di st r i ctj udg e to l d the j ur y tha t i t co ul d fi nd cr i m i nal m ail f r au d ( f o r pur po se s o fb o thRI CO a nd the seve n sta nd

- al one charg es) ifi t f ound ei ther( a) that Ryan to ok bribes ( pri vate paym ent f oro ffi ci alse rv i ces r e nd e r e d, wh e r e the p a y men twa s de s i g ne d t o i nfl ue nce thos e o ffi ci alact s) o r (b ) thatRyan a ccepted undisc l ose d paym ents th at cre ate d a co nfl i ct o fi nter est, ev en tho ugh he di d not do anythi ng i n e x c h an ge. The fi rs t pos sibi l i ty survi ved Sk i l l i ng, a nd the s ec o nd di d not. Ry anmai ntai ns thatthe j ury m ay have convi cted him o n ( b) al one. W he ne ver th e law cha ng es in this fashion after a j ury’s ver dict, it is di ffi cul t t o re const ruct w hat would have ha ppen ed i fthe i ns tr uct i o ns ha d b ee n di ff er en t; the j udg e’ s an d the l i ti g an ts ’ unde r st an di ngo fthe l aw a t th e ti m e i s bo und t o i nfluence ho w the y pr es en t an d a r g ue a ca se , a s wel l a s ho w the j ur y e va l ua te s i t. ButSk i l l i ng an d Black sai d that harm l ess - er ro r anal ysi s re m ai n s p ossibl e, s o we m us t r ec o ns tr ucta s be stwe ca n. M ai l

- f r au d c o nv i ct i o ns wer e r ea ffi r m ed o n r emand i n both Sk i l l i nga nd B lack
. S ee U nited St at e s v. Sk i l l i ng,8 N o. 10

- 3964 63 8 F.3d 48 0 (5th C ir. 20 11 ); U nite d State s v. B lack, 62 5 F
. 3d 3 8 6 (7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. Li k e the di s t r i c tj ud g e , we c o nc l ud e th at atlea st t w o o ft h em rem ain va lid for R ya n to o, in th e strong sens e tha t the j ury m ustha v e f o un d bribery and not j ust a f ai l ure to disc l ose a confl i ct o fi n te re st. W e hav e three pri nci pal r eas ons. Fi rs t, Ryan was co nvi cted o n f our tax c ounts, wh i ch involved om itti ng i nc om e from tax retu rns. Bribes are “i ncom e” und erthe In ter nal Reve nue Code; gi fts f ro m f r i en ds ar e no t i nc o m e. The j ur y w as so in st r uct ed. The j ur y al so was to l d th at i t sh o ul d ac qui t Ryan i f he bel i eve d that the m oney he r ecei ved w as a gift, r ather th an a p a y m e n t for fa vo rs d eliv er ed in re tu rn , eve n if hi s be l i efwas w ro ng. By co n vic tin g on the tax co unts, th e j u r y f o u n d th a tR y a n k n o wi n g l y a c c e p t e d p a y men t i n exchan ge fo r offi ci alact s

— that he was br ibed, r ather than j ust that he f ai l ed to di scl ose gi fts to the publ i c. S ec o nd, b o ths i des a r g ue d thi s ca se t o the j ur y a s o ne about briber y. The pro secuto r produced evi dence that L aw re n c e W ar n er , Ry an ’s c o-d efe n d a n t, p ro vid ed h im and his f am ily w ith e xtensi ve benefi ts. The di str i ct j ud ge s ummar i z e d: [ T] he b en efi ts fl o wi ng f r o m W ar ne r t o Ry ani ncl ud ed f avo rabl e co nstr ucti on a nd i nsurance benefi ts to Ryan’ s f am i l y m em ber s; i nvest m ents i n Ryan’ s s on’ s busi ness; and f avo rabl e fi nanci al tr ea tm en t o fCo m g ua r d, a b us i ne ss i nv o l vi ng Ryan’ s br othe r. A s Rya n hi m sel fnot es, W ar ner w ro te a $ 3,1 85 check to pay f orthe band that p lay ed atR ya n ’s d au gh te r’s w ed d in g a n d h eldN o. 10

- 3964 9 tw o m aj orfund

- ra i ser s f orRyan, r ai si ng a tot al of $250 , 000. T he govern m en t also p rovide d c ircum sta nti alev i dence thatRyan r ecei ve d cash f ro m W ar ner and other s. 759 F. Sup p . 2d at 997– 98 (citations to th e record om itted ). The se pa y m en ts unde r l aythr ee o fthe mai l -fr au d c o nvic tio n s (C ou n ts 2, 3 , a n d 8). R ya n ’s la w ye rs vig or ou sly a r g ue d tha tthe s e b e ne fi t s we r e t o k e ns o ffr i e nd s hi p, a n d th a th e d i d n o th i n gi n r e t u r n f o r th e m. I fs o me of hi s a cts ass i ste d W ar ner, o r W ar ner’ s a sso ci ate s, that ha p p en ed only becau se R yan conc lud ed i n th e exe rci se ofind ependent j ud gm ent that the publ i c i nter est re quir ed th e a cti ons f avo rabl e t o W ar ner. The pro secuto r m ight ha ve rep li ed that, ev e n if th at w as tru e, th e j ury st i l l s ho ul d c o nv i ctb ec au se Ry andi d no t di scl o se the pa y men t s . Bu ttha t ’ s n o twh a tthe p ro s e c ut o r a r g ue d. H e t ol d the j ury th at it n eeded to fi nd thatRyan r ec eived i m proper“be nefi ts”

— an d i n con tex t the se referen ce s to “ be ne fi ts ” m ea nt“ br ibe s. ” I n oth erwor ds, the pros ecuto r did nottr y t o tak e a dvantage o fthe port i on ofthe i nstr ucti ons thatSk i l l i ngl ate r disa pp ro ved. Both p rosecu tion an d de fense p resen ted this c a s e t o the j ury as a d i spu te abo utwhethe r Ry ant o o kb r ibe s. The ve r di cts ho ws that th e j ur y f o und i n the pr o se cution’s favor. T he l ine of reason ing in the p reced ing p aragrap h p ersuaded the di str i ct j ud ge

— who al so c o nduc te d the s i xm onth t ri aland thus had the bestper specti ve on wh at pract i cali ssues i nfl uenced the v er dict

— as it al so per s ua de s u s . R y a n mai nt a i ns , h o we v e r, tha tthe p ro s-10 N o. 10

- 3964

ecu tor d id not set th is up as a binary ch oice: find bribery an d co nv i ct, o r fi nd g i ft ( o r m i st ak e) an d ac qu it. The pr o s e c ut o r to l d th e j ur y tha ti tdi d n o tn e e d t o fi nd a qui d pr o quo i n o r dert o c o nv i ct
. A nd that, Ry anmai nta i ns , me an s tha t th e pr o se cut o r was a r g ui ngtha t th e j ury coul d convi ct b ase d on se cre cy ra therthan briber y. W e thi nk tha t thi s m i sund er sta nd s what the pros ecuto r m ea n t b y “quid pro quo. ” A d i spute devel oped at tr i alabou t whether the pr ose cuti on had to sho w that a p a r t i c ul a r p a y men tfr o m W a r ne r t o R y a n m atch e d a parti cul ardeci si on that Rya n m ade to c onferbene fi ts on W a r ne r . T he p r o s e c ut o r de ni e d tha tma t c hi ngwas ne ce ss ar y a nd co nt en ded th att ak i ngmone y i n e xchange f ora prom i se ( explici t o r re aso nabl y i m pli ed) to d eli ver ben efi ts in r etu rn is bribery; i t isn’t nece ssary to s ho w tha t W ar ne r ’ s pay i ngf o r the b an d a t th e w edd i ng co uld be m atched ag ai nst a p ar ti cul ardeci si on R yan m ad e in exc h a n ge. T he district j ud ge told th e j ury th atthe pr o se cut o r was r i g htabo utth is. Thus when th e p ro se c u to r d en ied th at it w as n ec es sa ry to s h o w a q u id p ro qu o, he w as no t argu ing tha t it w as u nn eces sary to show bribery; he w as argu in g th at R yan ’s l aw yers ha d defi n e d b r ib e r y t o o n a r r o wl y . T h i s a s p e c to fthe pros ecuto r’ s a rg um ent d id n ot i nvi te a co nvi cti on ba sed on nondi scl osur e, r atherthan the r ecei pt ofbr ibes. Our th i r d p r i n c i p a l r e a s o n f o r fi n d i n gth e e r r o r i n the j ur y i ns tr uct i o ns ha r m l es s co m es from a na l y si s o fthe ar gum ents pro and con ab out parti cul ar c ou nts. W hat w e h av e said so f ari s g ener al, but ther e were detai l ed su bmi ss i o ns t o the j ur y o n e ac h mai l

- f r au d c o unt ( an dN o. 10

- 3964 11 th u s o n e a c h p o t e n t i a l p r e d i c a t e c r i me u n d e r R I C O )
. We agr ee w i th the dist ri ct j ud ge’ s anal ysi s. Rath er than r es ta te i t, we r epr o duce the di sc us si o n c o nc erni ng Count 2, the fi rs t o fthe m ai l

- f ra ud co unts ( 759 F. Supp. 2d at 998– 99; ci tations om itted ): C o u n tT wo o fth e i n d i c t me n tc h a r g e d th a tt he m ai l i ng o fa check f ro m the St at e ofI l l i noi s t o A m er i can Detai l & M anufa cturin g C o. ( “A DM ”) was i n fu r th e r a n c e o f th e s c h e me t o d e f r a u d
. The evi dence attr i alsho w ed that R ya n inte rv ened on W ar ner’ s behal fin orderto get J am es Cover t, head of t h e Se c re ta ry o f Sta te ’s v eh icle -se rv ice s d ivisi on, to withdraw contr act speci fi cati ons that m i ght ha ve caused A DM to l ose a val uabl e v ehi c l e r egi str ati on s ti cker s co ntra ct. A t the ti m e, A D M w as W ar n er ’s c lien t, an d p rior t o R ya n ’s d irect interve nt ion, W arn er repres e n t ed to Cov ert th athe had “a utho r i tyto spe akf o r S ec r et ar y Ry an ” and w anted A DM to r eta i n the contr act. Inru lin g on th e s u f f i c i en c y of t h e e vid en c e in su p p ort of th is coun t, th e cou rt noted that j urors had been i nstr ucted that ifRyan had ac ted i n go od f ai th

— he clai m ed that his i ns t r u c tions to C overt wer e m o ti va te d b y l eg i ti m at e law- en f o r ce m en t co nc erns

— th ey sh ou ld n ot co n vic t h im on th is c ou n t. T h e jur or s c on vic te d R ya n d es p ite th is instru ction, and the cou rt observed that “Ry an ’s d ire c t in te rv en tio n on W ar n er ’s b eh alf, an d h is at te m pt to c o nc ea l hi s i nt er ve nt i o n by di r ec ting Cover t t o w i thdraw the specifi cati ons quie tl y,12 N o. 10

- 3964

am plysupport the j ury’s ve rdi ct with re spect to C ou n t T w o.” Para gr aph 3 o fthe sum m ar y i nd i ctm ent desc rib es th e W ar n er tra n s ac tio n, ch ar gin g t h at it was par t o f th e sc he m e th atRy an“ per f o r m ed an d au th o r i ze d o ffi cial ac ti o ns t o b en efi t th e fi na nci ali nter est s o f
. . . W arn er . . . . The o ffi ci al ac ti o ns Ry anpe r f o r m ed an d a utho r i ze d i nclud ed : A w ard ing, an d aut horizing t h e aw ard of, co nt r ac ts a nd l ea se s, a nd i nt erveni ngi n g o ve r nm en ta l pr o ce ss es r el at ed th er et o a nd c au sing con tr ac tu alpa y m en ts t o b e m ade t o b en efi t th e fi nanci ali nter est s o fdefendant W ar ner. ” Par ag r aph4 de sc r ibe s th e r eceipt o fb en efi ts b y Ry an, ex pl ai ni ngtha t “[ i ] t was fur th er p art o fthe sch e m e that de fend an t Rya n an d certain th ird p ar ti es affi l i ate d w i th Ryan r ecei ved pers onal an d fina n c ial b en efit s fro m d efe n d an t W a r n er . . . w hi l e defendant Ryan knew thatsuch be nefi ts wer e pr o vi ded wi thi nt en t to i nfl ue nc e an d re w ar d R ya n in t h e p er for m an c e o f offic ial a c ts .” I n ord ert o c o nv i ctRy ano n Co untTwo, the j uror s had to bel i eve o n e ofthr ee theo ri es: ei ther ( 1) Ryan c oncea l ed a c onfl i ct- of

- i nt er estr el ate d to th e ADM c o nt r a c t ; ( 2 ) R y a n mi s us e d h i s o ffi ce f orpri vate ga i n i n dis cussi ng the co ntra ct with Cover t; o r ( 3) Ryan a ccepted be nefi ts ( bribes) fro m W ar ne r i n e xc ha ng e fo r hi s i nt er ve nt i o n. The firs t t h eo ry d oe s n ot st an d on its o w n . Th e o n ly co nfl i cto fi nt er es t pr es en te d t o the j ur y r el at i ngN o. 10

- 3964 13 to A DM w as Ryan’ s r el ati onshi p w i th W ar ner and W ar ner’ s invo l vem ent i n thi s co ntra ct. There

f o r e, ifthe j ur y f o und tha t Ry anc o nc ea l ed a co nfl i ct o fi nter est( theo ry( 1) ) , i t nec ess ar i l y had to fi nd thathe ha d m i sused hi s o ffice f orpri vate gai n ( theo ry( 2) ) , o r th at h e had ac cepted bene fi ts f ro m W ar ner i n exchange f orf avo rs r el ating to A D M ( th eory (3) ). Th e m isu se of offi ce th eory ( 2) m i ght s tand al one i fthe j u ry bel i eve d that Ryan deci ded f or som e i l l egi ti m ate r eas on

— unrel ate d to th e benefi ts W ar ner provi ded to R yan

— t o c o e r c e C o v e r ti n t o wi th d r a wi n gt he speci fi cati ons. Bu t the onl y m oti vati ons R yan h ad to i nter f er e with thi s co ntra ct were f orl egit im ate l aw - enf or cem ent r eas ons, as the defe nse su g g es te d, or t o c o m pen sa te W ar ne r f o r the st r e a m o fb e n e fi t s h e p r o v i d e d , a s th e G o v er nm ent u rged. The j ury rej ecte d the g oo d fa i th m oti ve . Acco r di ng l y , the j ur y c o ul d o nl y hav e co nvic te d h im on th is c ou n t i fit be liev ed th at h is conduct w as a re sponse to the str eam of ben efits
. Ry ans ug g es ts tha t th e o nl y “ pri va te g ai n” he re c ei ved f orhi s i nter venti on i n thi s t ra nsacti on w as the a pp ro valof h i s fri end. A s e xplai ned ear l i er, however, the j urors m ust hav e r ej ecte d thi s a rg um ent; theywere spe c ifi cal l y i nstr ucted that i fthe benefi ts Ryan r ecei ved fro m W ar ner w er e m er el y the pro ceeds ofa f ri end sh ip , they cou ld n ot b e the basis fora conv iction. T he cou rt c on cl ud es that the j ury m ust hav e f ound Ryan accepte d gi fts f ro m W ar n er w i th the i ntent to i nfl uence hi s a cti ons.14 N o. 10

- 3964 The Gov er n m ent di d prese nt the awardi ng o f contract s a nd l eas es i n thes e t er m s. I n cl osi ng, the Go v e r nme ntu r g e d: Georg e Rya n, as a pu b lic offi ci al, had a duty to pr o vi de ho ne sts er vi ce s to the pe o pl e o fthe st at e o fI l l i no i s who ha d e l ected hi m . And th e ev i den ce i n thi s ca se h as sho wn th athe re peatedl y v i ol ate d that duty. H e v iola ted th atduty b y g i vi ngs ta te b en efi ts , l i k e co nt r a c t s a nd l e a s e s , t o his fr i e nd s

— W arn er, Sw an so n, K lein

— wh i l e a tth e s a me t i me they w er e pr ovi ding var i ous undis cl ose d fi nanci al benefi ts to hi m and hi s f am i l y a nd to hi s fri ends. The be nefi ts in c lu ded fre e v acati ons, l oans, gi fts, cam pai gn co ntributi ons, as w el l as l obby i ng m oney that Ryan as si gned ordi re cted t o hi s bud die s. I n shor t, Ryan so ld his o ffi ce . He mi g hta s wel l ha ve putup a ‘ f orsa l e’ si gn o n the offi ce. Further, the Gover nm ent pr ese nted a v a l i d “ s t r e am ofbene fi ts,” “re tai ner, ” o r “co urse o fco nd uct” briber y theor y when i t e xplai ned that thi s i s n ot a case in w hi ch a pu bl i c o ffi ci al ha d a spe ci fi c pr i ce f o r e ac h o ffi ci ala cttha t he did, l i ke a m enu i n a r estaurantwh er e y ou pi ck ani te m a nd i t ha s a par ti cul arpr i ce . The ty pe o f co r r upt i o n here

— tha tty pe o fc o r r up ti on wh er e y ou give m e thi s, Iwil l gi ve you that, i s o ften r efer re d to as a q ui d p r o q uo . The cor r up t i o n he r e wa s mo r e l i k e a me a l pl anN o. 10

- 3964 15 i n whi chy o u do n’ t payf o r e ac h i te m o n the m enu. Rather, ther e i s a c os t that y ou pay, an o ng o i ngc o st, a nd y o u g ety o ur meal s. And f orW ar ner, S w anson, and K l ei n i t was nota cash bar. T his w as an ope n ba r du ring Rya n’s term s as secret ary of state and as govern or. W hi l e Rya n i s cor re ct that the Gover nm ent a l so su g g es te d Ry anc o ul d b e co nvict ed ba se d o n a confl i ct o fi nter est, as e xplai ned ear l i er, thatwas n ot a te n ab le in d ep en d en t t h eo r y t h at w ou ld have supp or ted co nvi cti on of Ryan on Count Tw o. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r twe n t o n t o c o n c l u d e th a tth e o th e r t wo m ai l

- f ra ud co unts r el ate d to W ar ner ( Counts 3 and 8 ) m ust be a nal yze d i denti cal l y. 75 9 F. Sup p. 2d at10 00. A nd with th i s we r ea chthr ee , mor e th ane no ug h t o s us ta i n the RI CO co nvi cti on a nd se ntence. Th e di s t r i c t j ud g e c o nd uc t e d a s i mi l a r a na l y s i s f or each o fthe re m ai ni ng m ai l

- fraud co unts, id
. at10 00–0 4, and the appl i cati on o fthe m ai l

- f ra ud theo ri es to fi nd i ngp re di c a t e o ff e ns e s u nd e r R I CO, i d. a t1 0 0 4
. R e petiti o n i n thi s o pi ni o n i s unne ce ss ar y . W e do n’ t co nsi der these othe r f our c ou n ts , b ut r eader s s houl d not i nf e r tha twe di s a g r e e wi th a nyp a r to fthe di s t r i ct cour t’ s a nal ysi s. W e j ust thi nk i t unneces sar y, gi ven th atthe s en te nc es f o r a l l s ev enmai l

- f r au d c o nv i ct i o ns ha v e e xp i r e d. Our o pi ni on las t y ea r he l d, 6 45 F
. 3d at9 18 –1 9, tha t th e e v i de nc e i s s uffi c i e ntt o s up po r ta fi nd i ngo fma i l fr a ud , on a l l co unts, under Sk i l l i ng . The S up re m e Cou rt d id not i ns tr uctus t o recons i dertha t po r ti o n o fo ur de ci si o n.16 N o. 10

- 3964 The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s o rd er d enyi ng Ryan’ s m oti on f or re lief u n d er §2 25 5 t h er efo re is AFFI RMED .

8- 6- 12