# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 17 95

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mi ch ael A. Mag gi o

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 8 , 20 17
Fi le d: Ju ly 3, 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RILEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, an d GRITZNER, Dis tri ct 1 2

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1

St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10

, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.

The Hon or ab le Ja m es E. Grit zn er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2

So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.In th is cas e, we affi rm th e br ib ery co nv ic ti on an d te n- y ear pr is on se nt en ce th e

di st ric t co ur t or de red fo r a fo rm er st at e-co ur t jud ge who ad m it te d tra di ng a rem it ti tu r

3

in a cas e fo r a cam

pa ig n co nt rib ut io n an d th en ha d se co nd th ou gh ts ab ou t hi s gu il ty pl ea.

I. BACKGRO UND

I n la te sp rin g 20 13

, Mi ch ael Mag gi o was a ci rcu it (tr ia l) jud ge in Ark an sa s,

st art in g to cam

pa ig n fo r a se at on th e Ark an sa s Co ur t of App eal s. Thro ug h a lo bb y is t,
Mag gi o so li ci te d “ ‘nur si ng ho m e fo lk s’”—s to ck ho ld ers , no t res id en ts —fo r fin an ci al

su pp or t. Mea nwh il e, Mag gi o was pr es id in g ov er a cas e in whi c h t h e ju r y ha d jus t

ret ur ne d a $5 .2 m il li on ve rd ic t ag ai ns t a nu rs in g- ho m e co m pa ny. On th e da y Mag gi o
he ard arg u men t on th e co m pa ny’ s m ot io n to rem it th e jud gm en t, th e own er of th e

co m pa ny wro te ch eck s to ta li ng $2 4,0 00 t o s u p po rt Mag gi o’s cam pa ig n. Mag gi o,
who ha d be en to ld by th e lo bb y is t th at t h e c o mp a n y ’s own er wou ld gi ve m on ey if
Mag gi o ru le d in hi s co m

pa ny’ s fav or , a ccep te d th e co nt rib ut io ns an d, i n ex ch an ge , red uc ed th e award to $1 m il li on

.

Bas ed on th es e ad m it te d fact s, Mag gi o pl ed gu il ty to vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. § 66 6,

whi ch says:

(a) W h oe ve r, if th e ci rcu m st an ce de sc rib ed in su bs ect io n (b ) of th is

se ct io n e xi st s—

(1 ) be in g an ag en t of an or ga ni zat io n, or of a St at e, lo cal

, or In di an tri ba l g ov ern m en t, o r an y ag en cy th ereo f—

( A ) [il le ga ll y ta ke s $5 ,00 0 or m or e wor th of of fic ia l

pr op ert y ]; or

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 3

th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-(B) co rru pt ly so li ci ts or de m an ds fo r th e be ne f i t of an y
pe rs on , or acce pt s or ag rees to a c c e p t

, an y th in g of va lu e fro m an y pe rs on , in te nd in g to be in flu en ced or rewar de d in

co nn ect i o n wit h an y bu si ne ss , tra ns act io n, or se rie s of

tra ns act io ns of su ch or ga ni zat io n, go ve rn m en t, or ag en cy in vo lv in g a ny thi ng of v al ue of $ 5,0 00 or m or e; or

(2 ) [g iv es , off

ers , or a gr ees to gi ve a br ib e];

sh al l be fin ed un de r t h is ti tl e, im pr is on ed no t m or e th an 10 y ears , or bo th

.

(b ) The ci rcu m st an ce refe rred to in su bs ect io n (a) of th is se ct io n is th at th e or ga ni zat io n, g o v e r n ment

, or ag en cy rece iv es , in an y on e y ear
pe rio d, be ne fit s in ex ces s of $1 0,0 00 un de r a Fed eral pr og ram in vo lv in g

a gr an t, co nt ract

, su bs id y , lo an , gu aran te e, in su ran ce, or o t h e r f or m of
Fed eral ass is ta nc e.

In ot he r wor ds (an d as rel ev an t), an ag en t of a fed eral ly fu nd ed st at e go ve rn m en t or

ag en cy can no t acce pt a n yt h i n g of va lu e “ in te nd in g to be in flu en ced or rewar de d in

co nn ect io n wi th ” o ffi ci al bu si ne ss . Id.

To sa ti sf y th e st at ut e’s te ch ni cal req ui rem en ts

, Mag gi o st ip ul at ed th at (1 ) “ [d ]urin g hi s te nu re as a ci rcu it jud ge , [h e] was an ag en t of th e St at e of Ark an sa s

an d th e Twent ie th Ju di ci al Dis tri ct ”; an d (2 ) “ th e St at e of Ark an sa s, Twent ie th

Ju di ci al Dis tri ct

, rece iv ed ov er $ 1 0 ,00 0 in fed eral fu nd in g” in th e rel ev an t y ears

. Mag gi o al so “ waiv e[d ] th e rig ht to ap pe al th e co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce,” whi le 4

Bec au se Mag gi o e x p l ic it ly waiv ed th e rig ht to ap pe al

, we ne ed no t ad dr es s 4

wha t effe ct hi s gu il ty pl ea st an di ng al on e m ig ht ha ve ha d on hi s ab il it y to ap pe al

. Cf.
Cl as s v. Uni te d St at es , 1 37 S. Ct . 1 06 5 (2 01 7) (m em .) (g ran ti ng cert io rari in a cas e
pr es en ti ng th e qu es ti on : “ W he th er a gu il ty pl ea in he ren tl y waiv es a de fen da nt ’s rig ht

to ch al le ng e th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of h is st at ut e o f co nv ic ti on ? ”).

-3

-“res erv [in g] th e rig ht to ap pe al th e se nt en ce if th e se nt en ce im po se d is ab ov e t h e
Gui de li ne ran ge th at is est ab li sh ed at s en te nc in g.” See Un it ed Sta te s v . An di s, 33 3

F.3 d 88 6, 88 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ) (“ As a ge ne ral ru le , a de fen da nt is a l lo wed

to waiv e ap pe ll at e ri gh ts .”).

W hi le wait in g to be se nt en ced

, Mag gi o st op pe d co op era t in g wit h th e

go ve rn m en t. The go ve rn m en t th en rev ok ed it s fav or ab le st ip ul at io ns reg ard in g

se nt en ci ng , an d Mag gi o’s Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t was rev is ed acco rd in gl y

. Sh or tl y th erea fte r, Mag gi o m ov ed to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea. See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P.

11 (d )(2 )(B) . The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d M ag gi o’s m ot io n.

At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d th e reco m m en de d se nt en ci ng ran ge

un de r th e ad vi so ry Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es or U.S.S.G.) to

be 51 t o 63 m on th s. Mag gi o arg ue d fo r pr ob at io n. The go ve rn m en t, aft er

un su cces sf

ul ly co nt es ti ng th e Gui de li ne s de te rm in at io n, as ke d fo r a se nt en ce at th e 5

hi gh en d of th e ran ge

. The di st ric t co ur t va rie d up ward to 12 0 m on th s, th e st at ut or y

m ax im um , se e 18 U

. S.C. § 66 6( a), em ph as iz in g th at “ a di rty jud ge is by far m or e

ha rm fu l t o s oc ie ty tha n a ny do pe de al er.” 6

The go ve rn m en t ci te d Gui de li ne s § 2 C 1

. 1 ( b )(2 ) an d th e acco m pa nyin g 5

co m m en ta ry to arg ue it was a m is ta ke to ba se Mag gi o’s of fen se le ve l on th e va lu e of
th e cam pa ig n co nt rib ut io ns he rece iv ed

, rat he r th an th e m uc h la rg er am ou nt by whi ch
he red uc ed th e jud gm en t. W e do no t ad dr es s th is is su e—wh ic h th e go ve rn m en t ha s
pr es erv ed as a fal lb ack arg um en t on ap pe al —b ecau se we co nc lu de th e se nt en ce was

reas on ab le on it s o wn t erm s.

Hars h wor ds an d le ng th y se nt en ce no twi th st an di ng , th e di st ric t co ur t al lo wed 6 Mag gi o s ix ty day s t o g et hi s af fai rs in ord er, and th en gra nt ed Mag gi o’s m ot io n fo r rel eas e pe nd in g th is ap pe al

. The di st ric t co ur t a l s o ha d al lo wed Mag gi o to rem ai n f r e e f or th e fo ur te en m on th s be twee n hi s gu il ty pl ea an d se nt en ci ng

. As t h e
go ve rn m en t m ak es a po in t of in fo rm in g u s, M ag gi o h as no t yet se rv ed an y ti m e fo r hi s m is de ed s. Th at wil l s oo n c ha ng e. Unt il th en , we de cl in e th e im pl ic it in vi ta ti on
to rev ok e Mag gi o’s bo nd or ot he rwis e im po se a ha rs he r di sp os it io n th an th e di st ric t

-4

-Mag gi o no w arg ue s hi s co nv ic ti on is il le ga l an d hi s s en te nc e un reas on ab le

.

W e h av e ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

W e rev ie w leg al is su es , in cl ud in g th e ap pl ic at io n o f Mag gi o’s ap pe al waiv er

an d th e in te rp ret at io n of § 66 6, de no vo

. See, e.g ., Un it ed St at es v. Seay, 6 20 F.3 d

91 9, 92 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The di st ric t co ur t’s refu sa l to le t Mag gi o wit hd raw hi s pl ea
is rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. See, e

. g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Heid , 6 51 F.3 d 85 0,

85 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). So are th e de ci si on to va ry up ward an d th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e

se nt en ce. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en

ba nc ).

A. Con vi cti on Mag gi o’s pr im ary co nt en ti on on ap pe al is t ha t th ere was no fact ua l ba si s fo r

hi s gu il ty pl ea, an d th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve le t hi m wit hd raw it

. See Heid

, 65 1

F.3 d at 85 6. One of th e fact s Mag gi o cl ai m s was m is si ng is wha t he cal ls a “ ne xu s”

be twee n th e br ib e he to ok an d th e fed eral fu nd in g rece iv ed by th e jud ic ia l di st ric t

whe re he sa t. Not hi ng in th e te xt of § 66 6 req ui res su ch a li nk be twee n th e br ib e an d

fed eral m on ey , y et Mag gi o in si st s we m us t read on e in

, ot he rwis e th e st at ut e wou ld

ex ceed Co ng res s’s po wer un de r th e Co ns t i tu ti on

. The go ve rn m en t pi ck s ou t th is

po rti on of Mag gi o’s arg um en t, whi ch it ch arac te riz es as an “ at te m pt [] to rai se an ‘as

ap pl ie d’ ch al le ng e to § 6 66 by squ eezi ng it th ro ug h t he do or of h is ch al le ng e to th e

fact ua l b as is of h is pl ea,” a nd ass ert s i t i s b arre d b y Mag gi o’s ap pe al waiv er.

Mag gi o’s res po ns e is no t to di sp ut e th e ap pl ic ab il it y of th e waiv er bu t to cl ai m

it is irr el ev an t, be cau se h i s t h eo ry im pl ic at es th e di st ric t co ur t’s su bjec t-matte r

co ur t or de red

, gi ve n th at th e go ve rn m en t cou ld ha ve ap pe al ed th e po in t bu t di d no t.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 31 45 (c), 37 31 ; cf. Green la w v. Uni te d St at es , 5 5 4 U

. S

. 23 7, 24 0 (2 00 8) (“ [A]bse nt a Gov ern m en t ap pe al or cro ss -ap pe al

, th e se nt en ce

. . . sh ou ld no t ha ve be en in crea se d.” ).

-5

-juri sd ic ti on an d “ la ck of fed eral juri sd ic ti on can no t be waiv ed ,” Mi tc he ll v. Mau rer,

29 3 U.S. 23 7, 24 4 (1 93 4 )

. O u r c a se la w is cl ear, “ [a]s-a pp li ed ch al le ng es to th e

co ns ti tu ti on al it y of a st at ut e

. . . are no t juri s d i c t i o n a l

. ” Seay, 62 0 F.3 d at 92 2 n.3

. W e fin d no su pp or t fo r Mag gi o’s su gg es ti o n h i s p art ic ul ar as -ap pl ie d ch al le ng e is

so m eh ow ou ts id e th at ru le “ be cau se it de al s, no t wit h a m ere de fen se , bu t wit h pr oo f

of fed eral ne xu s an d th e ‘neces sa ry an d pr op er’ cl au se an d th e ab il it y to pr os ecu te at

al l.” The co nt ro ll in g pr eced en t, Uni te d St at es v. Seay, al so in vo lv ed a de fen da nt who

arg ue d a fed eral cri m in al la w co ul d no t be ap pl i ed to hi m co ns ti tu ti on al ly, an d we
he ld hi s ch al le ng e was “ fo recl os ed by his gu il ty ple a.” Id. 7

At or al arg um en t, we as ke d why th e go v e r nm en t di d no t in vo ke th e ap pe al

waiv er ag ai ns t th e res t of Mag gi o’s arg um en t, na m el y hi s cl ai m s ab ou t th e de fic ie nt

fact ua l ba si s fo r hi s pl ea. The go ve rn m en t as su red us th at it di d. The re is no th in g to

th at ef f ect in th e go ve rn m en t’s br ie f, ho wev er— th e di sc us si on of waiv er is cl earl y

co nf in ed to th e as -ap pl ie d co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e. Giv en th at it is th e go ve rn m en t’s

bu rd en to pr ov e an ap pe al waiv er ap pl ic ab le an d en fo rcea bl e, se e, e.g ., Uni te d St at es

v. Gray

, 52 8 F.3 d 10 99

, 11 02 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), we he si ta te to di sm is s Mag gi o’s ot he r

arg um en ts on th e ba si s of hi s ap pe al waiv er ab se nt an y real a r g u ment th at th e

req ui rem en ts fo r do in g so are sa ti sf ie d. Tha t is pa rti cu la rly so in li gh t of th e wor di ng

of Mag gi o’s waiv er be in g at le as t sl ig ht ly le ss cl ear wit h res pe ct to fact ua l

- b as is

ch al le ng es th an ot he rs we ha ve se en

. Cf., e.g ., id

. at 11 00 (wai ve r ex pr es sl y co ve red

“ ‘any is su es rel at in g to th e ne go ti at io n, ta ki ng or acce pt an ce of th e gu il ty pl ea or th e

fact ua l b as is for th e p le a’” (em ph as is om it te d) ).

Mag gi o’s cu rs or y refe ren ce to th e ru le th at we wil l no t en fo rce ap pe al waiv ers 7

if do in g so wou ld wor k a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce, se e And is

, 33 3 F.3 d at 89 1, is no he lp
ei th er. Mag gi o si m

pl y de cl ares th e ex cep ti on sh ou ld ap pl y “ [i]f th e co ur t fin ds m eri t in an y of [h is ] arg um en ts ,” bu t th at can no t be ri g h t

— e n f o rci ng waiv ers to ba r on ly

m eri tl es s ap pe al s wo ul d re nd er t he rul e su pe rfl uo us

.

-6

-Leav in g as id e th e waiv er, Mag gi o’s arg um en ts th at th ere was no fact ua l ba si s

fo r fin di ng hi m gu il ty are al l eas il y res ol ve d. The (ag ai n, no nju ris di ct io na l) ne xu s

th eo ry is sq ua rel y fo recl os ed by Uni te d St at es v. Hin es , in whi ch we he ld “ th e pl ai n

la ng ua ge of [§ 66 6] do es no t req ui re, as an el em en t to be pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t, a ne xu s be twee n th e act iv it y th at co ns ti tu te s a vi ol at io n an d fed eral fu nd s.” 8

Uni te d St at es v. Hin es , 54 1 F.3 d 83 3, 83 5- 36 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (aff i rm in g th e

co nv ic ti on of a de pu ty sh eri ff who to ok c a s h p a y of fs fo r en fo rci ng ev ic ti on or de rs

an d se iz in g pr op ert y , an d who arg ue d hi s co nd uc t ha d no th in g to do wit h th e fed eral

fu nd in g th e sh eri ff’s of

fic e rece iv ed ); se e al so Sab ri v. U ni te d Stat es , 54 1 U.S. 60 0,

60 5 (2 00 4)

. The cl ai m th at Mag gi o was no t an ag en t of th e st at e go ve rn m en t is be li ed
by h is st ip ul at io n th at he “ was a n a g e n t of th e St at e of Ark an sa s an d th e Twent ie th

Ju di ci al Dis tri ct .” See Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 33 1 F.3 d 59 1, 59 5 (8 th Ci r

. 20 03 )
(m ak in g cl ear th at th e fact ua l ba si s fo r a gu il ty pl ea can be es ta bl is he d th ro ug h fact s

reco un t e d a n d s ti pu la te d in th e pl ea ag reem en t). Mag gi o’s cl ai m th at th ere was no
ba si s fo r fin di ng an y qu id pr o qu o ig no res hi s ex pr es s ad m is si on of “ acce pt [in g]

. . . fin an ci al su pp or t

. . . in te nd in g to be in fl ue nc ed an d in du ced to rem it th e jud gm en t”
(em ph as is ad de d) . See i d.

Co nt rary to Mag gi o ’s su gg es ti on , th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s rece nt de ci si on in 8

McDo nn el l v. Uni te d St at es , 57 9 U.S.

__ _, 13 6 S. Ct

. 23 55 (2 01 6)

, di d no t un de rm in e Hin es , su ch th a t w e c o u l d ch oo se no t to fo ll ow it he re, se e, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 53 7 F.3 d 96 9, 97 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). McDo nn e ll was ab ou t wha t co nd uc t

r i s e s t o th e le ve l of an “ of fic ia l act ” wit hi n th e sc op e of a di ffer en t br ib ery st at ut e

. See M c D o n n e l l

, 57 9 U.S. at

__ _, 13 6 S. Ct

. at 23 71 -7 2 (in te rp ret in g 18 U.S.C. § 20 1( a)(3 )). McDo nn el l ha d no th in g to do wit h § 66 6 or wha t so r t o f fed eral

co nn ect io n is ne ces sa ry to gi ve Co ng res s au th or it y ov er st at e-l ev el co rru pt io n. True

, th e Co ur t ex pr es se d co nc ern s th at if th e st at ut or y la ng ua ge were read to o b r oa dl y ,

“ pu bl ic of

fic ia ls co ul d be su bjec t to pr os ecu ti on , wit ho ut fai r no ti ce, fo r th e m os t

pr os ai c in te ract io ns ,” id . a t

__ _, 13 6 S. Ct . a t 23 72 -7 3, an d Mag gi o li ke wis e warn s th at up ho ld in g hi s co nv ic ti on wou ld res ul t in “ ov ercr im in al iz at io n and free ran gi ng
pr os ecu ti on ” un de r § 66 6. Bu t th e lo gi cal pa ral le l be twe e n t ho se is su es is far to o ab st ract to est ab li sh th at ou r sp eci fic ho ld in g i n Hi ne s i s i n d ou bt aft er Mc Don ne ll

.

-7

-Als o m is ta ke n is Mag gi o’s rel ia nc e on Uni te d St at es v. W hi tfi el d, a F i f th

Ci rcu it de ci si on va cat in g § 66 6 co nvictio ns fo r two Mi ss is si pp i jud ge s on th e gr ou nd s

th at th e br ib es th ey to ok were no t “ ‘in co nn ect io n wit h any bu si ne ss , tra ns act io n, or

se rie s of tra ns act i o n s ’ of [an ] ag en cy rece iv in g fed eral fu nd s.” Uni te d St at es v.

W hi tfi el d, 59 0 F.3 d 32 5, 33 5- 36

, 34 5- 46 (5 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng 18 U.S

. C

. § 66 6( a)(1 )(B) ). The th eo ry of W hi tfi el d was , th e on ly su ch ag en cy th at m ig ht ha ve
be en im pl ic at ed was th e Mi ss is si pp i Adm in is tra ti ve Offi ce of the Co ur ts

. See id

. at

34 4. Bec au se th e bu si ne ss of th at of fic e—“ ‘the effi ci en t a d mi n i s t rat io n of th e

no nju di ci al bu si ne ss of th e co ur ts ’”—“ ha d no th in g to do wit h” th e jud ge s’ co rru pt

act s— ru li ng s in cas es th ey pr es id ed o v e r

— § 6 6 6 di d no t ap pl y

. Id

. at 34 4- 46
(q uo ti ng Mi ss

. Co de Ann

. § 9- 21 -1 ). Here, by co nt ras t, th e rel ev an t fed eral ly fu nd ed

ag en cy was “ th e St at e of Ark an sa s, Twent ie th Ju di ci al Dis tri ct

, Seco nd Div is io n,” th e jud ic ia l bo dy on whi ch Mag gi o sa t. See 18 U.S.C. § 66 6( d) (2 ) (d efi ni ng “ go ve rn m en t

ag en cy ” to in cl ud e “ a su bd iv is io n of th e

. . . jud ic ia l

. . . br an ch of go ve rn m en t” ). W e

ha ve no do ub t th at whe n a jud ge is su es an or de r rem it ti ng a jud gm en t in a cas e be fo re

hi m , he i s ac ti ng in co nn ect io n wi th th e b us in es s o f hi s co ur t.

Fi na ll y , Mag gi o’s un de ve lo pe d su gg es ti on th at he di d no th in g wro ng be cau se

“ th e rem it ti tu r was le ga ll y req ui red ” refl ect s a fu nd am en ta l m is un de rs ta nd in g of hi s
cri m e. Si m

pl y pu t, Mag gi o ad m it te d he to ok m on ey in te nd in g i t to co lo r hi s jud gm en t in a cas e. Tha t was il l e ga l, whe th er or no t a jud ge who was no t co rru pt

m ig ht ha ve ru le d th e sa m e way. S e e i d

. § 66 6( a)(1 )(B) (p ro hi bi ti ng “ co rru pt ly

. . .

acce pt [in g]” so m et hi ng of va lu e “ in te nd i n g t o be in flu en ced or rewar de d in

co nn ect io n wi th ” o ffi ci al bu si ne ss ).

B. Sent ence Mag gi o arg ue s hi s se nt en ce is un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t ba se d th e

up ward va ria nc e on th e fact Mag gi o was a jud ge , ev en th ou gh th e Gui de li ne s al read y

acco un te d fo r Mag gi o’s po si ti on b y i n c r e as in g hi s of fen se le ve l by fo ur le ve ls fo r
be in g “ an el ect ed pu bl ic of fic ia l” or “ pu bl ic of

fic ia l in a hi gh -le ve l de ci si on -m ak in g

-8

-or se ns it iv e po si ti on ,” U.S.S.G. § 2C 1.1 (b )(3 ). Mag gi o ci te s de ci si on s in whi ch we 9

ha ve “ cau ti on ed di st ric t co ur ts th at ‘sub st an ti al va ria nc es ba se d up on fact or s al read y

ta ke n in to acco un t in a de fen da nt ’s gu id el in es se nt en ci ng ran ge se rio us ly un de rm in e

se nt en ci ng un ifo rm it y .’ ” Uni te d St at es v

. So li s- Berm ud ez, 50 1 F.3 d 88 2, 88 5 (8 th

Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mo ral es -Uri be

, 4 7 0 F.3 d 12 82

, 12 86 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 )). The go ve rn m en t co un te rs wit h cas e la w m ak in g cl ear th at “ fact or s th at ha ve

al read y be en ta k e n i n t o acco un t in cal cu la ti ng th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge can

ne ve rth el es s fo rm th e ba si s of a va ria nc e,” so lo ng as th e se nt en ce ul ti m at el y im po se d

is reas on ab le . Uni te d S ta te s v . Davi d, 6 82 F.3d 10 74 , 10 77 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

Thi s is no t th e cas e t o a dd res s an y te ns io n in ou r pr eced en t on th is po in t,

be cau se Mag gi o’s pr em is e th at th e va ria nc e refl ect ed do ub le -co un ti ng (impro pe r or

no t) is m is ta ke n. The th ru st of th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n of th e va ria nc e was no t jus t th at Mag gi o was a si gn ifi can t pu bl ic of fic ia l who to ok a br ib e in co nn ect io n wit h

so m e un de fin ed of

fic ia l bu si ne ss , whi ch is al l th e Gui de li ne s pr ov is io n acco un te d fo r,
bu t sp eci fic al ly th at he was a ju dg e who to ok a br ib e to d e c i d e a ca se a pa rt ic ul ar

wa y . Thu s:

I pu t dr ug de al ers in pr is on fo r fiv e, te n, 15

, 20 y ears fo r st an di ng on th e
st reet co rn er se ll in g crac k co cai ne or be in g in vo lv ed in a co ns p i racy whe re t he y

are t al ki ng on th e p ho ne ab ou t cr ack

.

And I as ke d m

y se lf t h i s mo rn in g on m y way ov er he re fro m Hele na dr iv in g ov er, W ha t is wor se : A do pe de al er on th e ph on e ta lk in g ab ou t a d op e d eal , or a di rty j ud ge ? There ’s no qu es ti on

. In so ci et y , a di rty jud ge is by far m or e ha rm fu l to so ci et y th an an y do pe de al er. Now,

In hi s rep ly br i e f

, Mag gi o su pp le m en ts th is th eo ry wit h refe ren ces to th e 9

pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng an d co m pa ris on s to ot he r br ib ery cas es in vo lv in g la wy ers an d

go ve rn m en t of

fic ia ls

. W e ge ne ral ly do no t co ns id er arg um en ts om it te d fro m a pa rty’ s in it ia l br ie f, se e, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Mo rri s, 72 3 F.3 d 93 4, 94 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), an d
in an y ev en t, t he ad di ti on s ar e m ai nl y rhe to ric al an d d o n ot ch an ge ou r co nc lu si on

.

-9

-y ou sa y do pe de al ers ki ll pe op le an d th ey do al l of th at

, bu t a jud ge is th e

syste m

.

In th e di st ric t co ur t’s vi ew, th e fact Mag gi o act ed co rru pt ly whi le pe rfo rm in g hi s co re
du ty as a jud ge pr es id in g ov er a cas e—a co nt ex t in whi ch

, ev en m or e th an ot he r hi gh

le ve l an d el ect ed of

fic ia ls

, he as su m ed a m an tl e of i mp a r t ia li ty an d sa t as a

pe rs on ifi cat io n of “ th e syste m ”—s et hi s cri m e ap art an d m ad e it si gn ifi can tl y wor se

th an th e us ua l on e to whi ch th e Gui de li ne s p r o vi si on ap pl ie d. W e se e no ab us e of

di sc ret io n in th at de te rm in at io n, pa rti cu la rly gi ve n th e de fere nc e we affo rd th e di st ric t

co ur t re ga rd in g s en te nc in g. Se e, e.g ., Feem st er, 5 72 F.3d at 4 64

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON
Mag gi o waiv ed at le as t pa rt of hi s ap pe al

, hi s ne xu s th eo ry is m eri tl es s, an d th e
di st ric t co ur t was wit hi n it s di sc ret io n to ho ld hi m to hi s gu il ty pl ea an d se nt en ce hi m

to ten y ears in pri so n. We affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-