United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1795

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael A. Maggio

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

Submitted: March 8, 2017

Filed: July 3, 2017

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, GRUENDER, CircuitJudge, and GRITZNER, District 1 2

Judge.

____________

RILEY, Chief Judge.

The Honorable William Jay Riley stepped down as Chief Judge of the United

1

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on March 10,

2017. He has been succeeded by the Honorable Lavenski R. Smith.

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

2

Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
In this case, we affirm the bribery conviction and ten-year prison sentence the

district court ordered for a former state-court judge who admitted trading a remittitur

3

in a case for a campaign contribution and then had second thoughts about his guilty

plea.

I. BACKGROUND

In late spring 2013, Michael Maggio was a circuit (trial) judge in Arkansas,

starting to campaign for a seat on the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Through a lobbyist,

Maggio solicited “‘nursing home folks’”—stockholders, not residents—for financial

support. Meanwhile, Maggio was presiding over a case in which the jury had just

returned a $5.2 million verdict against a nursing-home company. On the day Maggio

heard argument on the company’s motion to remit the judgment, the owner of the

company wrote checks totaling $24,000 to support Maggio’s campaign. Maggio,

who had been told by the lobbyist that the company’s owner would give money if

Maggio ruled in his company’s favor, accepted the contributions and, in exchange,

reduced the award to $1 million.

Based on these admitted facts, Maggio pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 666,

which says:

(a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of this

section exists—

(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or

Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof—

(A) [illegally takes $5,000 or more worth of official

property]; or

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

3

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any

person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value

from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in

connection with any business, transaction, or series of

transactions of such organization, government, or agency

involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or

(2) [gives, offers, or agrees to give a bribe];

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or

both.

(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that

the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year

period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving

a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of

Federal assistance.

In other words (and as relevant), an agent of a federally funded state government or

agency cannot accept anything of value “intending to be influenced or rewarded in

connection with” official business. Id.

To satisfy the statute’s technical requirements, Maggio stipulated that

(1) “[d]uring his tenure as a circuit judge, [he] was an agent of the State of Arkansas

and the Twentieth Judicial District”; and (2) “the State of Arkansas, Twentieth

Judicial District, received over $10,000 in federal funding” in the relevant years. 

Maggio also “waive[d] the right to appeal the conviction and sentence,” while 4

Because Maggio explicitly waived the right to appeal, we need not address

4

what effect his guilty plea standing alone might have had on his ability to appeal. Cf.

Class v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1065 (2017) (mem.) (granting certiorari in a case

presenting the question: “Whether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant’s right

to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction?”).

-3-
“reserv[ing] the right to appeal the sentence if the sentence imposed is above the

Guideline range that is established at sentencing.” See United States v. Andis, 333

F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“As a general rule, a defendant is allowed

to waive appellate rights.”).

While waiting to be sentenced, Maggio stopped cooperating with the

government. The government then revoked its favorable stipulations regarding

sentencing, and Maggio’s Presentence Investigation Report wasrevised accordingly. 

Shortly thereafter, Maggio moved to withdraw his guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(d)(2)(B). The district court denied Maggio’s motion.

At sentencing, the district court calculated the recommended sentencing range

under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines or U.S.S.G.) to

be 51 to 63 months. Maggio argued for probation. The government, after

unsuccessfully contesting the Guidelines determination, asked for a sentence at the

5

high end of the range. The district court varied upward to 120 months, the statutory

maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 666(a), emphasizing that “a dirty judge is by far more

harmful to society than any dope dealer.”6

The government cited Guidelines § 2C1.1(b)(2) and the accompanying

5

commentary to argue it was a mistake to base Maggio’s offense level on the value of

the campaign contributions he received, rather than the much larger amount by which

he reduced the judgment. We do not address this issue—which the government has

preserved as a fallback argument on appeal—because we conclude the sentence was

reasonable on its own terms.

Harsh words and lengthy sentence notwithstanding, the district court allowed 6

Maggio sixty days to get his affairs in order, and then granted Maggio’s motion for

release pending this appeal. The district court also had allowed Maggio to remain

free for the fourteen months between his guilty plea and sentencing. As the

government makes a point of informing us, Maggio has not yet served any time for

his misdeeds. That will soon change. Until then, we decline the implicit invitation

to revoke Maggio’s bond or otherwise impose a harsher disposition than the district

-4-
Maggio now argues his conviction is illegal and his sentence unreasonable. 

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II. DISCUSSION

We review legal issues, including the application of Maggio’s appeal waiver

and the interpretation of § 666, de novo. See, e.g., United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d

919, 923 (8th Cir. 2010). The district court’s refusal to let Maggio withdraw his plea

is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Heid, 651 F.3d 850,

854 (8th Cir. 2011). So are the decision to vary upward and the reasonableness of the

sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en

banc).

A. Conviction

Maggio’s primary contention on appeal is that there was no factual basis for

his guilty plea, and the district court should have let him withdraw it. See Heid, 651

F.3d at 856. One of the facts Maggio claims was missing is what he calls a “nexus”

between the bribe he took and the federal funding received by the judicial district

where he sat. Nothing in the text of § 666 requires such a link between the bribe and

federal money, yet Maggio insists we must read one in, otherwise the statute would

exceed Congress’s power under the Constitution. The government picks out this

portion of Maggio’s argument, which it characterizes as an “attempt[] to raise an ‘as

applied’ challenge to § 666 by squeezing it through the door of his challenge to the

factual basis of his plea,” and asserts it is barred by Maggio’s appeal waiver.

Maggio’s response is not to dispute the applicability of the waiver but to claim

it is irrelevant, because his theory implicates the district court’s subject-matter

court ordered, given that the government could have appealed the point but did not. 

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3145(c), 3731; cf. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 240

(2008) (“[A]bsent a Government appeal or cross-appeal, the sentence . . . should not

have been increased.”).

-5-
jurisdiction and “lack of federal jurisdiction cannot be waived,” Mitchell v. Maurer,

293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934). Our case law is clear, “[a]s-applied challenges to the

constitutionality of a statute . . . are not jurisdictional.” Seay, 620 F.3d at 922 n.3. 

We find no support for Maggio’s suggestion his particular as-applied challenge is

somehow outside that rule “because it deals, not with a mere defense, but with proof

of federal nexus and the ‘necessary and proper’ clause and the ability to prosecute at

all.” The controlling precedent, United States v. Seay, also involved a defendant who

argued a federal criminal law could not be applied to him constitutionally, and we

held his challenge was “foreclosed by his guilty plea.” Id. 7

At oral argument, we asked why the government did not invoke the appeal

waiver against the rest of Maggio’s argument, namely his claims about the deficient

factual basis for his plea. The government assured us that it did. There is nothing to

that effect in the government’s brief, however—the discussion of waiver is clearly

confined to the as-applied constitutional challenge. Given that it isthe government’s

burden to prove an appeal waiver applicable and enforceable, see, e.g., United States

v. Gray, 528 F.3d 1099, 1102 (8th Cir. 2008), we hesitate to dismiss Maggio’s other

arguments on the basis of his appeal waiver absent any real argument that the

requirements for doing so are satisfied. That is particularly so in light of the wording

of Maggio’s waiver being at least slightly less clear with respect to factual-basis

challenges than others we have seen. Cf., e.g., id. at 1100 (waiver expressly covered

“‘any issues relating to the negotiation, taking or acceptance of the guilty plea or the

factual basis for the plea’” (emphasis omitted)).

Maggio’s cursory reference to the rule that we will not enforce appeal waivers 7

if doing so would work a miscarriage of justice, see Andis, 333 F.3d at 891, is no help

either. Maggio simply declares the exception should apply “[i]f the court finds merit

in any of [his] arguments,” but that cannot be right—enforcing waivers to bar only

meritless appeals would render the rule superfluous.

-6-
Leaving aside the waiver, Maggio’s arguments that there was no factual basis

for finding him guilty are all easily resolved. The (again, nonjurisdictional) nexus

theory is squarely foreclosed by United States v. Hines, in which we held “the plain

language of [§ 666] does not require, as an element to be proved beyond a reasonable

doubt, a nexus between the activity that constitutes a violation and federal funds.”8

United States v. Hines, 541 F.3d 833, 835-36 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming the

conviction of a deputy sheriff who took cash payoffs for enforcing eviction orders

and seizing property, and who argued his conduct had nothing to do with the federal

funding the sheriff’s office received); see also Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600,

605 (2004). The claimthat Maggio was not an agent of the state government is belied

by his stipulation that he “was an agent of the State of Arkansas and the Twentieth

Judicial District.” See United States v. Brown, 331 F.3d 591, 595 (8th Cir. 2003)

(making clear that the factual basis for a guilty plea can be established through facts

recounted and stipulated in the plea agreement). Maggio’s claim that there was no

basis for finding any quid pro quo ignores his express admission of “accept[ing] . . .

financial support . . . intending to be influenced and induced to remit the judgment”

(emphasis added). See id.

Contrary to Maggio’s suggestion, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in 8

McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), did not undermine

Hines, such that we could choose not to follow it here, see, e.g., United States v.

Williams, 537 F.3d 969, 975 (8th Cir. 2008). McDonnell was about what conduct

rises to the level of an “official act” within the scope of a different bribery statute. 

See McDonnell, 579 U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2371-72 (interpreting 18 U.S.C.

§ 201(a)(3)). McDonnell had nothing to do with § 666 or what sort of federal

connection is necessary to give Congress authority over state-level corruption. True,

the Court expressed concerns that if the statutory language were read too broadly,

“public officials could be subject to prosecution, without fair notice, for the most

prosaic interactions,” id. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2372-73, and Maggio likewise warns

that upholding his conviction would result in “overcriminalization and free ranging

prosecution” under § 666. But the logical parallel between those issues is far too

abstract to establish that our specific holding in Hines is in doubt after McDonnell.

-7-
Also mistaken is Maggio’s reliance on United States v. Whitfield, a Fifth

Circuit decision vacating § 666 convictionsfor two Mississippi judges on the grounds

that the bribes they took were not “‘in connection with any business, transaction, or

series of transactions’ of [an] agency receiving federal funds.” United States v.

Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 335-36, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting 18 U.S.C.

§ 666(a)(1)(B)). The theory of Whitfield was, the only such agency that might have

been implicated was the Mississippi Administrative Office of the Courts. See id. at

344. Because the business of that office—“‘the efficient administration of the

nonjudicial business of the courts’”—“had nothing to do with” the judges’ corrupt

acts—rulings in cases they presided over—§ 666 did not apply. Id. at 344-46

(quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 9-21-1). Here, by contrast, the relevant federally funded

agencywas “the State of Arkansas, Twentieth Judicial District, Second Division,” the

judicial body on which Maggio sat. See 18 U.S.C. § 666(d)(2) (defining “government

agency” to include “a subdivision of the . . . judicial . . . branch of government”). We

have no doubt that when a judge issues an order remitting a judgment in a case before

him, he is acting in connection with the business of his court.

Finally, Maggio’s undeveloped suggestion that he did nothing wrong because

“the remittitur was legally required” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of his

crime. Simply put, Maggio admitted he took money intending it to color his

judgment in a case. That was illegal, whether or not a judge who was not corrupt

might have ruled the same way. See id. § 666(a)(1)(B) (prohibiting “corruptly . . .

accept[ing]” something of value “intending to be influenced or rewarded in

connection with” official business).

B. Sentence

Maggio argues his sentence is unreasonable because the district court based the

upward variance on the fact Maggio was a judge, even though the Guidelines already

accounted for Maggio’s position by increasing his offense level by four levels for

being “an elected public official” or “public official in a high-level decision-making

-8-
or sensitive position,” U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3). Maggio cites decisions in which we 9

have “cautioned district courts that ‘substantial variances based upon factors already

taken into account in a defendant’s guidelines sentencing range seriously undermine

sentencing uniformity.’” United States v. Solis-Bermudez, 501 F.3d 882, 885 (8th

Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Morales-Uribe, 470 F.3d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir.

2006)). The government counters with case law making clear that “factors that have

already been taken into account in calculating the advisory Guidelines range can

nevertheless formthe basis of a variance,” so long asthe sentence ultimately imposed

is reasonable. United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012).

This is not the case to address any tension in our precedent on this point,

because Maggio’s premise that the variance reflected double-counting (improper or

not) is mistaken. The thrust of the district court’s explanation of the variance was not

just that Maggio was a significant public official who took a bribe in connection with

some undefined official business, which is all the Guidelines provision accounted for,

but specifically that he was a judge who took a bribe to decide a case a particular

way. Thus:

I put drug dealers in prison for five, ten, 15, 20 years for standing on the

street corner selling crack cocaine or being involved in a conspiracy

where they are talking on the phone about crack.

And I asked myself this morning on my way over here from

Helena driving over, What is worse: A dope dealer on the phone talking

about a dope deal, or a dirty judge? There’s no question. In society, a

dirty judge is by far more harmful to society than any dope dealer. Now,

In his reply brief, Maggio supplements this theory with references to the

9

purposes ofsentencing and comparisons to other bribery casesinvolving lawyers and

government officials. We generally do not consider arguments omitted froma party’s

initial brief, see, e.g., United States v. Morris, 723 F.3d 934, 942 (8th Cir. 2013), and

in any event, the additions are mainly rhetorical and do not change our conclusion.

-9-
you say dope dealers kill people and they do all of that, but a judge isthe

system.

In the district court’s view, the fact Maggio acted corruptly while performing his core

duty as a judge presiding over a case—a context in which, even more than other highlevel and elected officials, he assumed a mantle of impartiality and sat as a

personification of “the system”—set his crime apart and made it significantly worse

than the usual one to which the Guidelines provision applied. We see no abuse of

discretion in that determination, particularly given the deference we afford the district

court regarding sentencing. See, e.g., Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464.

III. CONCLUSION

Maggio waived at least part of his appeal, his nexus theory is meritless, and the

district court was within its discretion to hold him to his guilty plea and sentence him

to ten years in prison. We affirm.

______________________________

-10-