F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 9, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble Lyle E. Strom, United States District J udg e for the District of Ne braska , * sitti ngby desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1112 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 00 31 9- CR-T-2 6- TGW UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us PA UL ET TE LY

NN E M CCA RT ER , a. k.a. Paulette L ynne LaB rake, STEVEN AL LEN LA BRAKE, CHESTER MAURIC E LUNE Y, a. k.a. Chet L uney D ef en dants -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 9, 200 7) Before AN DE RSO N and BARKET T, Circuit Judges, and ST ROM , D istrict * Judg e.2

ST ROM , D istrict Judg e: D ef en dants appe al the ir

c onvi ct ion s f

or c harg es r el at ing to a sc he m e to de fr au d th e U nit ed

S ta te s, br ibe ry

and r ec ei pt o f gr at

uit ie s. D ef

en dants a sse rt

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed : ( 1) in de cl ini ng t o di sm iss the ind ic tm en t a ga ins t the m f or fa ilure to pr ovi de an a de qua te de sc ri pti on o f the sc he m e to d ef ra ud; ( 2) in de ny ing the de fe ndants ’ m oti ons fo r j udgm en t of a cquitta l ba se d onins uf

fi ci en cy of ev ide nc e; ( 3) in de cl ini ng t o se ve r Co unt s 59 and 6 0 of the six ty -c ount

ind ic tm en t; an d ( 4) in en hanc ing de fe ndant S te ve n L aB rake ’ s of fe nse le ve l ba se d onthe co ur t’s fi nd in gs at s en te nc in g. I. BACKGRO UND A. De fend ants D ef en dant S te ve n L aB rake ( “ L aB rake ”) he ad ed the Co m m uni ty Redevelopm ent Agency

(“ CRA ”) of T am

pa, F lorida (“ the City ”). T he CRA rece ives m oney

from the United State s Depar

tm ent of Housing and Urban Dev el op m en t (“ HUD”) an d a dm in is te rs fun di ng forth e Ci ty’ s h ou si ng pro gr am . T he Ci ty partne rs w ithand g uarante es li ne s of c re dit f or vari ous not -f

or -p ro fi t en ti ti es to reh ab il it at e ex is ti ng ho us es an d c on st ru ctne w m od erat e an d l owinc om e hous ing . T he not -f or -p ro fi t e nti tie s hi re c ontra ct or s c hose n by the Ci ty to pe rfo rm th e co ns tru ct io n wo rk .Paulette Ly nne McCar

ter c hang ed her

last name to L aB rake afte r she mar ried c o- 1 defe ndant Steven L aB rake . To avoid conf usion, the Court will refer to her a s “McCar

ter” throug hout this opi nion. 3 Pa ule tte L ynne Mc Cart er

( “ Mc Cart er ”) , L aB rake ’ s th en -g ir lf ri en d and n ow 1 w if e, a lso w orke d f

or the CR A , e ve ntu al ly

takin g th e posi tio n of

se nio r r e d e v e l o p me n tc o u n s e l o r , th e e qu i v a l e n to f al o a n p r o c e s s o r . S h e h e l p e df i r s t - t i me ho m eo wne rs ob ta in lo an s u nd er t he Cit y ’s ho us in g p ro gr am . Ch es te r L une y

( “ L une y ”) , af

ri en d of L aB rake , w as the c hie f ex ec uti ve of fi ce r of T am paH ill sbor oughA ct ionP lan ( “ T H A P” ), agr oup of not -f or -p ro fi t en tit ie s th at

both bu ilt

hou se s and c oor din at ed

the c onstru ct ionof

hou se s by p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t o r s . T H A P r e c e i v e dc o n t r a c t s f r o m th e C i t y f

o r l o w - i n c o me hous ing projects. D uring the period th at L aBrake headed the CRA , T HA P began to receive a

greater num ber of proj ects fr om

the City . At the sam e tim e, Luney al so w orke d a s a

f ull -t im e sta ff

psy ch olo gis t f

or the U nit ed

S ta te s D ep ar

tm en t f or V et er an s A ff

ai rs ( “ V A ”) . H is s upe rv iso r at the V Ate sti fi ed

that L une y

r ep eate dly de ni edha vi ng a rel at io ns hi p wi th THAP du rin g h is em pl oym en t wi th th e VA. D ean R y an( “ Ry an ”) w as ac ontra ct or w ho w orke d f

or not -f or -p ro fi t en tit ie s, suc h a s T H A P, and r ec ei ve d m an y c ontra ct s f

ro m the Ci ty . R

y ana lso perform ed various work at McC arter ’ s property , including carpet and fence ins ta llatio n. R

y anple d gu ilty

be fo re the tr ia l and t es tif ie d a s agov er

nm en t4

w itn es s a t tri al . H e te sti fi ed that “ [M r. L aB rake ] w as the bos s and y ou d id wha t he sa idor youjus t d id n’t d o a nyth in g” (Doc . 34 4 a t 1 80 ). L or i R obe rt s, a lso kno w n a s L or i H or ne , w as aloan of

fi ce r at the U niv er sity of S outh F lor ida

F ed er al Cr ed it U nio n. T he j ur y f ound Ro be rt s no t gu ilty

of both ch arg es ag ai ns t h er. B. Fact ual Back ground In Jan ua ry

19 99 , LaBrak e b ou gh t p ro pe rty to b ui lda ho us e o n C hi pp ewa Avenue in T am

pa, F lorida (“ Chippewa property ”). In Fe bruary 2000 , L uney

hired Albert C arsw ell to install p avers at L aBrake’ s Chippewa property and directed T H A P to p ay

$1, 275 fo r the ins ta llatio n. C ar sw el l pr ep ar ed an in voi ce f

or the work at L aBrake’ s property , but the invoice was a ltered to describe the w ork as

“ concrete w ork @ Enterprise C enter. ” L uney ’ s subo rdinate, L ynn Knox, testified that L une y

tol d he r he ha d go tte n “ too c los e to the li ne ” in r ef er en ce to thi s in ci de nt . In Novem

ber 2000, McCarter and LaBr ake, who w ere dating at the tim e, de ci de d to bui ld a

hou se tog ethe r on C or onaS tr ee t i n T am pa , F lor ida

( “ Co ro na pr op ert y ”). The co nt ract an d l oa n app li cat io n wer e so le ly in M cCa rte r’s na m e. On N ovem

ber 1, 2000 , in an e ffort to help McCarter im prove her financial sit ua tio n and e lim inate de bt, L une y dir ec te d T H A P to b uy

out Mc Cart er ’ s le as e of a T o yot a 4 Ru n n eran dth en o n No v emb er9 , 2 0 0 0 , s ep ar at el y p ai dMc Ca rt er ’s5

co m pany , “ So Wha t’ s th e O cc as ion ?, ” $576 . 34 f or the ti re s onthe T oy ota 4R unne r. I n th e fa ll of

200 0, L une y ’ s or ganiz at ion , T H A P, c ontra ct ed w ith McCar ter’ s com pany to purchase 250 gi ft baskets at $125 each to give to new hom eowner s. T he evidence established that nearly all of the goods in these gift ba ske ts w er e pr ovi de d by T H A P an d othe r not -f

or -p ro fi t or ganiz at ion s, and n ot McCar ter’ s com pany . For these baskets, T HA P paid McCarter’ s com pany a total of $32,475 between N ovem ber 2000 and Ju ly

2001 . Out of these f

unds , Mc Carte r wr ote checks to LaB rake totalling ov er $5,000. On January 3, 2001, L uney executed a lea se agree m ent with McCarter f or her house in Riverview, Florida, w hic h e nable d M cC ar

te r to l ist r en ta l i nc om e on h er

loan a ppl ic at ionf

or the Co ro napr ope rty . U nde r the le as e ag re em en t, L une y ’ s da ught er w as to liv e in the Riverviewhouse for $1,400 per m onth . How ever, Luney ’ s daught er never m oved int o th e Ri ve rv ie whou se , and the hou se w as not le as ed to an oth er

pe rs on unti l Octo be r 20 01 . The t en an t ex ecu te d alea se for$1 ,05 0 p er m on th . A t the ti m e Mc Cart er

pur ch as ed

the Co ro napr ope rty , the re w as an ol d, sm al l ho use on the pr ope rty . L aB rake , thr oughT H A P, pa id m or e than $2 9, 000 to m ove the hou se f

ro m the Co ro napr ope rty

w he n T H A P did

not y et have alot

on w h i c h t o p l a c e th e h o u s e . TH A P a l s o p a i dt o r e mo v e d e b r i s f r o m th e p r o p e rt y, pa id t o r ep ai r a ne ighbor ’ s f en ce that ha d be endam ag ed dur ing the m ove , and pu rch as edpa lm

tre es forth e p ro pe rty.6

InD ec em be r 2000 , Mc Cart er

hir ed Ry anto bui ld the she ll of the hou se f

or $1 05 ,00 0, an d Ry an pe rs on al ly inc urredm an y ex pe ns es du rin g t he co ns tru ct io n. E ar ly in 2001 , w he n R

y anc oul d no lon ge r af

fo rd to w ork onthe hou se , L aB rake prom ised to awar d fifteen contrac ts to Ry an at $3,000 m ore than the standard contract. Beginning in Februar y 2001 , T HA P aw arded Ry an fourteen contracts at the high er price , which wer e approved by Luney . Ry an requested a sim ilar higher pr ic e fr om

T am paU nit ed Me tho dis t C ente rs ( “ T U MC ”) , anothe r not -f or -p ro fi t entity invol ved in low-incom e housin g. T he director of T UMC contacted L aB rake ’ s of

fi ce to inq

uir e ab out

Ry an ’ s r eque st. Mc Cart er spo ke w ithhim

and told h im she would speak to LaBr ake about Ry an’ s contracts. La Brake then notified TU MC that he w anted Ry an to get fourteen or fifte en m ore contracts at the high er price . In addition , T HA P issued a $30,000 check to Ry an in March 2001 . Ry ante sti fi ed

that he pe rf

orm ed no w ork f

or T H A P in e xc hange f

or thi s check. Soon after, La Brake r equested Ry an to pay two of Mc Carte r’ s credit car d bil ls. A cc or din g to the e vid en ce , R y anpa id $ 13, 379 on o ne of the bil ls f

or ch ar ge s un re la te d to the Co ro napr ope rty . I n 20 03, Mc Cart er and L aB rake sol d th e Co ro na pro pe rty for $ 48 0,0 00 . CR Ae m plo y ee , D av id S ny de r, te sti fi ed that at a m ee tin g to dis cu ss the be st use of CR Af unds , L aB rake state d th at the y ne ed ed to take c ar e of

the ir f ri en ds first, m entioni ng Luney

and Ry an. It w as standard policy for not-for- profit entities7

to r ec ei ve ate n pe rc en t de ve lop m en t f ee f or e ac h pr ope rty

on whic h th ey

bui lt an d sol d ahou se . I n M ar ch200 1, T H A P re ce ive d $5 , 000 pe r pr ope rty in ad dit ionto the de ve lop m en t f

ee . I nvoi ce s in cl udi ng this a ddi tio na l f ee w er e to b e se nt t o th e CRA. InMarc h 20 01, L aB rake a ske d L une y to co m ple te c onstru ct ionon a

hou se on Jos ie D rive in Sef

fner, Florida, owned by

Lor i Roberts, a

friend of Mc Carte r an d L aB rake . R obe rt s ha d aba lanc e of $58 , 000 on h er

hom eo w ne r’ s lo an ; ho wev er, THAP es ti m at edth e co st of t he workto be co m pl et edwas $ 10 8,0 00 . L une y tol d T H A P em

plo y ee , L ynn K

nox, that T H A P w oul d r ec ove r the $50 , 000 thr ougha ddi tio na l aw ar ds o f pr oj ec ts f ro m the Ci ty thr oughL aB rake . T H A P pa id a co ntr ac tor

be tw ee n $8 0, 000 an d $9 0, 000 to c om ple te c onstru ct ionon the pr op ert y . C. The C harges La Brake, McCarter, and Luney (collectively

“ defendants”) w ere charged with sixty crim inal viol ations in total. T he superseding indictm ent (“ indictm ent”) ch ar ge d e ac h de fe ndant w ithc onsp ir ac y to de fr au d and c om

m it of fe nse s a ga ins t the U nit ed

S ta te s, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 37 1 ( Co unt

1) and w ir e fr au d, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C.§§ 13 43 , 13 46 an d 2 (Co un t 2 ). T he ind ic tm en t c harg ed

L une y w ithbr ibe ry , in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. §§ 201( b) (1 )( A ) an d ( B) and 2 ( Co unt s 6- 13) ; pr ovi din g un law fu l gr at uit ie s, in8

vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 2 01( c) (1 )( A ) an d 2 ( Co unt s 28 -3 5) ; br ibe ry , in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. §§ 6 66( a) (2 ) an d 2 ( Co unt s 56 -5 8) ; and e m be zz le m en t, in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. §§ 6 66( a) (1 )( A )( i) and ( ii) and 2 9 ( Co unt 59) and i n vi olatio n of

18 U. S. C. §§ 64 1 and 2 (Count 6 0). T he ind ic tm en t c harg ed

L aB rake and M cC ar

te r w ithbr ibe ry

in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. §§ 2 01( b) (2 )( A ) an d ( B) and 2 ( Co unt s 14 -2 4) ; r ec ei vin g un law fu l gr at uit ie s, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 2 01( c) (1 )( B) and 2 ( Co unt s 36 -4 6) ; and br ib ery, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 66 6( a)(1 )(B) an d 2 (Co un ts 47 -5 2) . D . Tr ialP ro ce ed in gs Ry an pled guil ty

prior to the trial, and the rem aining d efendants we re trie d be fo re aj ur

y in N ove m

be r 2004 . L une y

m ove d pr e- tr ia l t o se ve r Co unt s 59 and 6 0 and orally

renew ed this m otion on the first day of trial. T he district court denied these m otion s. F ollowing th e governm ent’ s case-in-c hief, the district court gr an te d L une y ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l w ithr es pe ct

to Co unt s 59 and 60, but denied Luney ’ s m otion for m istrial. L uney did no t testify

and presented onl y one w itn es s, his w if

e, dur ing his c as e- in- ch ie f. A t the c los e of a ll the ev ide nc e, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d L une y ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l onthe rem ai ni ng co un ts . L aB rake te sti fi ed

in his de fe nse a t tri al . T he c ourt de nie d L aB rake ’ s m oti on fo r j udgm en t of

a cquitta l ona ll co unt s a ga ins t hi m . Mc Cart er did not c al l any9

witnesses on her behalf. A t the close of all the evidence, the district court granted Mc Cart er ’ s m oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l a s to Co unt s 14 and 3 6, f ind ing she w as not apub lic of

fi ci al . H ow ev er , the c ourt di d no t gr an t M cC ar te r’ s m oti on f

or j udgm ent of acquittal on the oth er c ount s and, instead, a llowed the j ury to consid er w he the r Mc Cart er

w as gui lty

of a idi ng and a

be tti ng L aB rake , apub lic of fi ci al , in th e so li ci ta ti on an d re cei pt of b rib es an d g ratui ti es . T he j ur y f ound : ( 1) L aB rake and M cC ar te r gui lty of a ll ch ar ge s a ga ins t the m ; and ( 2) L une y

gui lty of Co unt s 1, 2, 6- 13, 28- 35, 57 and 5 8, but not gui lty of Count 56 . The district court denied the defendants’ post-verdict m otion s for new tr ia ls and f

or j udgm en ts o f ac qui tta l. T he c our t se nte nc ed

L aB rake to 60 m onths im pr iso nm en t, Mc Cart er

to 41 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t, and L une y

to 33 m onths im pr is on m en t. II . IS SUES O N APPEAL A . Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de cl ini ng t o di sm iss the ind ic tm en t fo r fa ilure to pr ovi de an a de quate de sc ri pti on o f the sc he m e to de fr au d; B. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing the de fe ndants ’ m oti ons fo r j udgm en t of

a cquitta l ba se d onins uf

fi ci en cy of e vid en ce ; C. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de cl ini ng t o se ve r Co unt s 59 and 60; and D. Whether the district erre d in enhancing La Brake’ s offense level based on th e co ur t’s fi nd in gs at s en te nc in g.Luney ’s ar gument relates only to Count 2 of the indictment. Defe ndants cha lleng e the 2 descr iption of the scheme to de fra ud, which is the first of two e lements of wire fra ud. Se c tio n 1 34 6 s tate s: “ F or the purp os e s o f t

his c ha pte r, the te rm

‘s c he me or

art if ic e to 3 de fr a ud ’ i nc lud e s a

sc he me or

art if ic e to d e pr ive ano the r o f t he int ang ibl e ri g ht o f h on e st service s.” 18 U.S.C. § 1346. 10 III. DISC US SION A. Ad equacy of t he Ind ictm ent L une y arg ue s, and L aB rake and M cC ar te r ad opt his arg um en t, that the district court erre d in declinin g to dis m iss the ind ictm ent for fa ilure to provid e an ad equa te de sc ri pti on o f the sc he m e to d ef ra ud. T he suf

fi ci en cy of an in dic tm en t 2 is a le ga l qu es tio n r ev ie w ed de nov o. Uni te d S ta te s v. Bo bo , 344 F. 3d 1 076 (1 1th Ci r. 20 03 ).

“ The e lem ents of wire fra ud un der 18 U. S. C. § 134 3 are ( 1) intention al part ic ipatio n inasc he m e to d ef ra ud and ( 2) use of

the int er state w ir es in furtherance of the schem e. ” U nit ed Sta tes v . H

ass on , 333 F . 3d 1 264, 127 0 ( 11th Ci r. 20 03 ), cert. denied , 541 U . S. 105 6 ( 2004 ), 543 U . S. 117 3 ( 2005 ) (c iti ng U nit ed Sta tes v . R oss , 131 F . 3d 9 70, 984 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . I n a ddi tio n, th e gove rn m en t m

ust a lle ge of w ha t the vic tim

ha s be ende fr au de d, w he the r it be m one y , pr ope rty

or the r igh t t o ho ne st s er

vic es und er

18 U . S. C. § 13 46. United 3 States v. deV

egter , 198 F . 3d 1 324, 132 8 n. 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . “ A n in dic tm en t need do littl e m ore than track the language of the statute charged to be sufficie nt.”11

Uni te d S ta te s v. Ad

ki ns on , 135 F. 3d 1 363, 137 5 n. 37 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) ( ci tin g U nit ed Sta tes v . Sta vr oulak

is , 95 2 F .2d68 6, 6 93 (2n d C ir. 1 99 2) . H er e, the ind ic tm en t i nc lud es suf fi ci en t i nf orm at ionand an a de quate description o f the schem e to defra ud. Count 2 of the indictm ent charges defendants with knowinglyand willfully causing HU D to transfer by wir e $100 , 687. 41 “ fo r the pur

pose of e xe cu tin g [ de fe ndants ’ ] sc he m e to d ef ra ud, and fo r obt ai nin g m one y

by m eans o f fa lse and f

ra udul en t pr et en se s, r ep re se ntatio ns, an d pr om ise s, and f

or de pr ivi ng the c iti ze ns o f the S ta te of F lor ida and the Ci ty

of Tam pa of t he in ta ng ib le rig ht of h on es t s erv ic es ” in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § § 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 6 an d2 . T h e i n d i c t me n tp r o v i d e df u rt h e r a l l e g a t i o n s o f

th e s c h e me to d ef ra ud, a lle gin g th at

L aB rake and M cC ar

te r re que ste d and r ec ei ve d it em s of va lue f ro m L une y and R y an , and tha t L une y

and R y angave it em s of

va lue to L aB rake and M cC ar

te r in e xc hange f

or c ontra ct s. R ev ie w ing the a de qua cy of the ind ic tm en t de novo , w e fi nd the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de cl ini ng t o di sm iss the in di ct m en t. Re la te d to the iss ue of

the ind ic tm en t’ s a de qua cy is L aB rake ’ s arg um en t that the ind ic tm en t w as so v ag ue a s to a llo wc onstru ct ive a m en dm en t of the indictm ent by

the district court’ s jur

y instruction s and the gov ernm ent’ s evidence an d c los ing arg um en ts. L aB rake r el ie s onage ne ra l a lle ga tio n th at the gove rn m en t’ s c as e w as ba se d onan in suf fi ci en t l eg al the or

y ; ho w ev er , L aB rake12

fa ils to poi nt t o any

spe ci fi c portio ns o f the ind ic tm en t tha t w er e al le ge dly constructivelyam ended or the m anner in which they we re am ended; therefore, th ere i s n o b as is forth e Co ur t t o re ve rs e LaBra ke ’s con vi ct io ns on th is gro un d. See G reenbriar

, L td. v. City of A laba ster , 881 F. 2d 15 70, 1573 n .6 (11th Cir. 1989 ) (c iti ng D av is v . H

ill E ngi ne er ing

, I nc ., 54 9 F .2d31 4, 3 24 (5t h C ir. 1 97 7) ). B. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e T he de fe ndants arg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing the ir

m oti ons fo r j udgm en t of

a cquitta l be ca

use the ir c onvi ct ion s w er e not

sup porte d by sufficient evidence. W e re view both a denial of a m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal an d th e suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce sup portin g ac onvi ct ion de novo , vie w ing the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t. U nit ed Sta tes v . E

va ns , 344 F. 3d 1 131 (1 1thCi r. 200 3) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . Eck

hard t , 466 F . 3d 9 38 ( 11th Ci r. 200 6) ( quot ing U

nit ed Sta tes v . D iaz -B oy

zo , 432 F . 3d 1 264, 126 9 ( 11th Ci r. 2005 )) ; U

nit ed Sta tes v . H

ass on , 33 3 F .3d12 64 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ), ce rt. denied , 541 U . S. 105 6 ( 2004 ), 543 U . S. 117 3 ( 2005 ). T o su ppor t a c onvi ct ion

“ [i ] t i s no t ne ce ssary

that the e vid en ce e xc lud e ev er y r ea sona ble hy pothe sis of in no cen ce o r be who ll y

in co ns is te nt wit h e ve ry

co nc lu si on ex cep t t ha t o f gu il t. A j ury is free to choose am ong reasonable const ructions of the evidence.” United Sta tes v . O

spi na , 823 F . 2d 4 29, 433 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( ci tin g U nit ed Sta tes v . B el l , 67 8 F .2d54 7, 5 49 (5t h C ir. 1 98 2) , aff ' d on oth er

gro unds , 462 U. S. 356 (198 3)).L a B ra ke make s n o a

rgume nts of

his own r e g ard ingsu ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e a g a ins t 4 him and instead re lies on his adoption of Luney ’s ar guments. “[S] ufficie ncy arguments are too individualiz ed to be g ener ally adopted.” United States v. Cooper , 2 03 F .3 d 1 27 9, 12 85 n. 4 ( 11 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S tates v . D av is , 61 F.3d 291, 296 n.2 ( 5th Cir.1995)). Reg ardle ss, the Court finds there w as suffic ient evidenc e supportingL aB rake ’s conviction. 13 W e w ill affirm

the verdict if a reasonable j uror could conclud e the evidence es tabl is he s t he de fen da nt s’ gu il t b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t. H ass on , 333 F. 3d at 12 70 . 1. L un ey an d L aB rake 4 Luney claim s, and L aBrake adopts h is argum ent, that the district court err ed in d en y ing his m oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l w ithr es pe ct

to Co unt s 1, 2, 6- 11, 13, 28- 33, 34, 57 and 5 8. S pe ci fi ca lly , L une y arg ue s th er e w as ins uf

fi ci en t evidence of: (1) his corr

upt in tent to effec t a qui d pr o qu o ; ( 2) ali nk b etw ee n th e thi ngs of va lue he r ec ei ve d and the se rv ic es he pr ovi de d or a ct ion s he too k; ( 3) the ab ili ty of Mc Cart er

to inf lue nc e a publ ic of

fi ci al in ex ch an ge f

or thi ngs of va lue fr om L une y ; ( 4) his part ic ipatio n, and i nte nti on t o part ic ipate , in a sc he m e to de fr au d; and ( 5) his kno w ing e ntr y int o an a gr ee m en t t o c onsp ir e to c om m it unl aw fu l a ct s. To prove a def

endant is gu ilty

of bribery , the governm ent m ust prov e there w as “ a qu id p ro q uo -- aspe ci fi c int en t t o gi ve or r ec ei ve som ethin g of

va lue in exchange for an off

icial act. ” U

nit ed Sta tes v . Sun -D iam ond G row er s of Ca lif orni a , 526 U . S. 398 , 404 -0 5 ( 1999 ). T he gov er nm en t ne ed

not pr es en t14

ev ide nc e of

adir ec t a gr ee m en t t o e xc hange of fi ci al a ct ionf

or m one y ; i nst ea d, br ib ery m ay

be pro ve n t hr ou gh in fere nc es dra wn fr om th e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. United States v. M

assey , 89 F.3d14 33 , 14 39 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ), cer t den ie d, 519 U . S. 112 7 ( 1997 ). I n U

nit ed Sta tes v . Q uin n , 359 F . 3d 6 66 ( 4thCi r. 200 4) , the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the go vernm ent need not prov e “ ‘ that the de fe ndant i nte nde d f

or his paym en ts t o be ti ed

to spe ci fi c of

fi ci al a ct s ( or om issio ns) . . . . Rather, it is sufficient to sho w that the pay or intended for each paym ent to induce the officia l to adopt a specific course of action.’ ” Q uin n , 359 F. 3d at 67 3 ( quot ing U

nit ed Sta tes v . J

en nin gs , 160 F. 3d 10 06, 1014 (4th Cir. 19 98 )). T o su ppor t a gr at uit ie s c onvi ct ion , “ the G ove rn m en t m ust pr ove ali nk betwee n a thing o f value confer red upon a pub lic official and a specific “ official act” f or or because of which it w as given.” Sun-D iam ond G row er s, 526 U.S . at 414. A n il le ga l gr at

uity c anbe ar ew ar d f

or apa st o r fu tur e ac t t ak enby apub lic of fic ia l. Id . at 4 05 . To prove the existence of a conspiracy

to defraud or com

m it offenses ag ai nst the U nit ed

S ta te s, the gov er

nm en t m ust e sta bli sh: ( 1) an a gr ee m en t b et we en two o r mor e p er s o n t o ac h i ev e a n u n l aw fu l o b je ct i v e; (2 ) ad ef

en d an t ’s know le dge of

and v oluntary

part ic ipatio n inthe c onsp ir ac y ; and ( 3) the co m m is si on of a n o ve r actin fur th eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy. U nit ed Sta tes v . Sub a ,15

132 F. 3d 6 62, 672 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . “ Asc he m e to d ef ra ud r equir es pr oof

of m at er ia l m isr ep re se ntatio ns, or the om iss ionor

c onc ea lm en t of

m at er ia l f

ac ts, re as ona bly c al cu la te d to de ce ive pe rs ons of or din ar y pr ude nc e. ” Id . a t 12 70- 1271 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . H ass on , 33 3 F .3dat 1 27 0. W e fi nd the e vid en ce is suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a f ind ing by ar ea sona

ble j ur or that L une y

and L aB rake w er e gui lty be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt o f the c ount s charged. T he evidence suppo rts the conclusio n that LaB rake sought and Luney pr ovi de d th ing s of

va lue to L aB rake , in ex ch an ge f or the aw ar d of

c ontra ct s to TH AP . The e vidence concerning two incidents in particular is convincing th at th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt Lu ne y ’s and LaBrak e’s co nv ic ti on s. Fi rs t, the re is ev ide nc e that L une y dir ec te d T H A P to p ay

f or the ins ta llatio n of pavers at L aBrake’ s Chippewa property in February

2000 , w ith the int ention th at L aB rake w oul d c hanne l C ity c ontra ct s to T H A P. A cc or din g to the e vid en ce , the installer prepared an invo ice ac curately describing the work, but the invoice was al te re d to m ak e it ap pe ar

a s th oughthe w ork ha d be endon e el se w he re . T he altered invoice described the w ork as “ concrete w ork @ Enterprise C enter. ” In additio n, there wa s testim ony that Luney

told a subo rdinate em

ploy ee that he had g o t t en “ t o o cl o s e t o th e l i n e, ” i n re fe re n ce t o th e w o rkp er fo rmedo n La Br ak e’s pr op ert y at THAP’s ex pe ns e.16

Second, ther e w as evidence that L uney and La Brake c oncocted a gift basket sc he m e to fun ne l THAP m on ey to LaBrak e in ex ch an ge forth e award of c on tra ct s. As part of this plan, TH AP entered into a contract w ith a com pany McCarter registered in 2000 called “ So What’ s the Occ asion? ” (“ McCar ter’ s com pany ”), wher ein TH AP agree d to pu rchase 250 gift baskets from McCarter’ s com

pany at $125 dol lars e ac h. T he e vid en ce e sta bli she d th at

T H A P pa id M cC ar

te r’ s c om pany a tot al of $32 , 475 fo r the gif

t ba ske ts, e ve n th oughT H A P an d othe r not -f or -p ro fi t com panies, not McCarter’ s com pany , paid for nearly

all of the item s in the gift ba ske ts. I n a ddi tio n, the re is ev ide nc e that M cC ar te r the n w ro te c he ck s to LaBra ke fro m

McC art er’s co m

pa ny’ s ac co un t t ot al in g app ro xi m at el y $5 ,00 0. L ynn K nox te sti fi ed

that the num

be r of c ontra ct s T H A P re ce ive d f ro m the Ci ty inc re as ed dur ing the ti m e pe ri od i n w hic h L aB rake w as the he ad of the CR A , and TH AP began to receive m ore contracts than T UMC , which had form erly rec eived m or e co ntr ac ts than T H A P. I n a ddi tio n, both L une y and L aB rake m ad e state m en ts to the ir r es pe ct ive e m

plo y ee s te ndi ng t o pr ove the ir gui lt. A t a

m ee tin g to dis cu ss al loc at ionof

CR Af unds , L aB rake state d th at the CR Aha d to take c ar e of

it s fr ie nds fi rs t, spe ci fi ca lly

m en tio nin g L une y

and R y an . S im ilarl y , L aB rake m ad e state m en ts t o L ynn K

nox that hi s a ct ion s m ay

have be en“ too c los e to the li ne ” an d re as sur ed e m plo y ee s th at

L aB rake w oul d aw ar d T H A P ad dit ion al c ontra ct s to17

m ak e up f

or a$50 , 000 shor

tf al l r el at ed to T H A P’ s w or

k a t R obe rt s’ Jos ie pr op ert y . Finally , L uney

argues that (1) Mc Carte r w as not a publi c officia l and lacked authorityto award contracts and (2) the governm ent failed to prove that Luney ga ve thi ngs of

va lue to Mc Cart er

w iththe int en tio n th at

Mc Cart er

w oul d pe rs ua de La Brake to aw ard contracts to T HA P. W e disagree. T he evidence presented at tr ia l de m onstrate s th at

L une y kne wMc Cart er

w as L aB rake ’ s gi rl fr ie nd whe n he pr ovi de d go ods an d se rv ic es to Mc Cart er and tha t L aB rake w as in ch ar ge of de te rm ini ng h owm an y

c ontra ct s T H A P shou ld r ec ei ve f ro m the Ci ty . A lso , m an y of the be ne fi ts b es tow ed

upo n M cC ar

te r by L une y dir ec tly and i ndi re ct ly be ne fi tte d L aB rake . F or

ins tanc e, L une y

w as aw ar e that M cC ar

te r an d L aB rake int en de d to li ve tog ethe r at the Co ro napr ope rty , w he re T H A P pr ovi de d m an y s er v i ce s . M cC ar t erwr o t e o u tch ec k s t o La Br ak e f ro m Mc Ca rt er ’s co m

p an y’ s ac co unt a ft er Mc Cart er ’ s c om

pany r ec ei ve d m one y

f ro m T H A P. V ie w ing the evidence in the light m ost favorable to the gov ernm ent, w e find there w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce f

or the j ur y to fi nd L aB rake and L une y gui lty be y ond a reas on ab le do ub t.

2. McCarter McCar ter ar gues that the evid ence w as insufficient to prove she : (1) entered into anyagree m ent with the co-defe ndants to com m it any of the substanti ve crim es18 U. S.C. § 2 state s: 5 (a ) Wh oe ve r c omm its an o ff e ns e a g a ins t th e Un ite d St ate s o r a ids , a be ts, c ouns e ls, c omm and s, ind

uc e s o r p ro c ur e s it s c omm iss ion , is punis ha ble a s a pr inc ipa l. (b) Whoever

willfully cause s an ac t to be done which if direc tly perf ormed by him or ano the r w ou ld b e an o ff

e ns e a g a ins t th e Un ite d St ate s, is p un ish a ble a s a pr inc ipa l. 18 ch ar ge d inthe ind ic tm en t; an d ( 2) ha d th e re qui sit e int en t t o c om m it an y of the subs tanti ve c ri m es c harg ed in the ind ic tm en t. A t the c los e of the e vid en ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that M cC ar

te r w as not

apub lic of

fi ci al and l ac ke d th e au tho ri ty and a bil ity to aw ar d c ontra ct s; h ow ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt i nstru ct ed the j ur y to co nsi de r w he the r Mc Cart er a ide d and a

be tte d L aB rake in the sol ic itatio n an d re cei pt of b rib es . To prove a def

endant is gu ilty

of aiding and abettin g the com m issio n of a cr im e in v iol at ionof

18 U . S. C. § 2, the gov er nm en t m ust pr ove the de fe ndant 5 as si st edth e p erp et rat orof t he cri m e an d s ha redth e req ui si te cri m in al in te nt . U nit ed Sta tes v . Sc hw art

z , 666 F . 2d 4 61, 463 ( 11th C ir . 198 2) . T he gov er nm en t m ust prov e “ the defendant associated [herself] with a c rim inal venture, participated in it as som ething [she] wished to bring abou t and soug ht by [her] actions to m ake it succeed. ” Id . ( quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v . Sm ith , 631 F . 2d 3 91, 395 (5 th C ir . 198 0) ). E ve n w he n th e gove rn m en t pr ovi de s li ttl e dir ec t e vid en ce of a de fe ndant’ s kn ow le dge c onc er nin g abr ibe ry

sc he m e, the j ur

y ’ s c onvi ct ionw ill19

not be ov erturned if there is adequate circum stantial evidence from which the j ury co ul d i nf er t he de fen da nt ’s kn owl ed ge of t he sch em e. U nit ed Sta tes v . G rif

fin 324 F. 3d 3 30, 357 -5 8 ( 5thCi r. 200 3) . Mo re ove r, “pr oof of ac los e as soc ia tio n be tw ee n th e de fe ndant and a ke y play er in the c onsp ir ac y

c anbe pr obativ e of

the defendant's guiltyknowledge.” Id . at 3 58 . McCar ter’ s rece ipt of services and thing s of value from La Brake and Ry an both di re ct ly

and thr oughMc Cart er ’ s c om pany e sta bli sh at l ea st a

m ini m al le ve l of part ic ipatio n inL une y ’ s and L aB rake ’ s il le ga l a ct ivi tie s. Mc Cart er r ec ei ve d inter ali a $32, 475 fo r gif

t ba ske ts i n e xc hange f

or vir tua lly no i nve stm en t and a lso r e c e i v e dv a r i o u s s e rv i c e s t o th e C o r o n ap r o p e rt y a tn o e x p e n s e . Ad d i t i o n a l l y, TH AP paid McCarter’ s com pany separately

for her Toy ota 4Runner tires, e ven th ou gh THAP hadalr ead y bo ug ht ou t h er l eas e o n t he en ti re v eh ic le . Whil e the r ec ei pt o f se rv ic es and thin gs o f va lue doe s no t ne ce ssari ly es ta bli sh M cC ar

te r’ s kn ow le dge of

il le ga l a ct ivi tie s or

r equis ite int en t t o vi olate the law , w e fi nd the re w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

he r know le dge and i nte nt t o supp ort he r co nvi ct ion . Mc Cart er c hose not

to te sti fy a t tri al ; the re fo re , any ev id en ce o f he r kn owl ed ge an d i nt en t i s n eces sa ril y cir cu m st an ti al . See U

nited Sta tes v . Sm ith , 459 F. 3d 12 76, 1287 (11t h Cir. 2006 ). A ccording to th e evidence, McCar ter w as aw are that TH AP aw arded Ry an fiftee n contracts at $3,000 high er than th e standard

r at e at ati m e w he n R

y anw as pe rf

orm ing w ork onhe r pr ope rty20

an d a ft er Ry aninf orm ed L aB rake and M cC ar

te r that he c oul d no lon ge r af fo rd to work on their property

without gettin g paid. She had w orked for the CRAand had so m e kno wled ge of LaB rak e’s ro le in th e p ro ces s o f award in g c on tra ct s. Mc Cart er w as a lso aw ar e that T H A P pa id t o r em ove the hou se on h er Co ro na property , so that she and La Brake c ouldbuilda newhouse on the property . Af ter Mc Cart er r ec ei ve d m one y

f or the gif t ba ske ts, she w ro te c he ck s to L aB rake tot al ing $5, 000 fr om

the f unds she r ec ei ve d. Mo re ove r, Mc Cart er w as aw ar e of the r el at ion shi p be tw ee n L aB rake , L une y , and R y an . V ie w ing the e vid en ce in the lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t, w e fi nd the re w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce f

or the j ur y to fi nd M cC ar

te r gui lty be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt o f ai din g and a be tti ng in the sol ic itatio n and r ec ei pt o f br ibe ri es and g ratui tie s. C . C ou nt s 59 an d 60 L une y arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n inde cl ini ng t o se ve r Co unt s 59 and 6 0 pr ior to the tr ia l. Co unt s 59 and 6 0 c harg ed L une y w ith em bezzlem ent stem

m ing from

two chec ks Luney

rec eived from

TH AP . Luney obt ai ne d th e fi rs t c he ck , in the a m ount of $6, 510. 68, in 1997 , and the se co nd check, in the am ount of $5,000.00, in 1999. T he governm ent alleged that Luney re ce ive d e ac h of

the se c he ck s f

ro m T H A P im

m ed ia te ly a ft er his pe rs ona l c he ck s to the IRS boun ced. Initially , the district court denied L uney ’ s m otion to sever21

charges 59 and 60; h owever , a fter the governm ent rested, the district court granted Lun ey ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al on th es e two ch arg es . Den ia l o f a m ot io n t o s ev er ch arg es is rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. U nit ed Sta tes v . Co le , 755 F. 2d 74 8, 762 (11th Cir. 1985). “ To dem onstrate an ab use of dis cr et ion , appe llants m

ust e sta bli sh tha t the y

‘ suf fe re d c om pe lli ng prej udice against which the trial court w as unable to afford protection.’ ” Id. ( ci tin g U nit ed Sta tes v . R uss el l , 70 3 F .2d12 43 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 19 83 )). Dur in g t he go ve rn m en t’s p res en ta ti on of i ts cas e, itpre se nt edon ly two ex hib its r el at ing to the se c harg es . T he se e xhi bit s w er e ar gua bly r el at ed to the oth er c harg es a ga ins t L une y ; ho w ev er , e ve n if L une y is co rr ec t tha t the governm ent m isjoined Counts 5 9 and 60, Luney fails to show that he suffer ed su ffi ci en t p reju di ce t o warran t re ve rs al on th is is su e. D. LaBrak e’s Se nten cing L aB rake arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in en hanc ing his of

fe nse le ve l by 10 b as ed on the c ourt’ s f

ind ing of f ac t r eg ar din g th e am ount of los s in vol ve d w ith his of fe nse s. L aB rake c la im s th e dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t ri ght s and United States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005 ), be ca use the a m ount

of los s w as not

c harg ed in his ind ic tm en t or

f ound by aj ur y . L aB rake a lso a sse rt s th e district court viol ated his consti tutio nal rights when it enhanced his offense levelL aB rake contends plain e rror revie w is inappropriate, ar guing that this appeal is not the 6 first time he ra ised issues reg ardinghis sentence . Although L aB rake raised non- constitutional objections befor e the district cour t as to the amount of loss and role enhanc ements, none of L a B ra ke ’s ob je c tio ns ra ise d th e c on sti tut ion a l is su e s h e no w a pp e a ls. Th e re fo re , th e Court wi ll revie w the sente ncingissues for plain e rror . 22 based on hi s role in the offense and his participation in m ore than two bribes be cau se th e jury hadno t ex pl ic it ly fou ndsu ch fact s. W e re vie wse nte nc ing iss ue s r ai se d f or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al f or pla in error . U nit ed Sta tes v . A gui lla rd , 217 F . 3d 1 319, 132 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . “ Fo r thi s 6 Co urt t o c or

re ct pla in e rr or : ( 1) the re m

ust be e rr or ; ( 2) the e rr or

m ust be pla in; and (3) the err or m

ust affec t subs tantial rights.” A gui lla rd , 217 F . 3d at 13 20 (c iti ng U nit ed Sta tes v . Ste ve nson , 68 F . 3d 1 292, 129 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) ). I f the se re qui re m en ts are m et , w e m ay the n e xe rc ise our

dis cr et ionand c or

re ct the e rr or if it “ seriouslyaff

ect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of j udicial proceedings.” U

. S. v . O lan o , 507 U . S. 725 ( 1993 ) (quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v . Young , 47 0 U.S. 1 , 15 (19 85 ) ). This Court has held that, af ter Booker , it is not a constituti onal error f or a district court to m ake extra- verdict fac tual finding s or fac tual determ ination s that go bey ond a defendant’ s adm issio ns, so long as the court considers the guid elines ad vi so ry , rat he r th an m an da to ry . U nit ed Sta tes v . R odri

gue z, 398 F . 3d 1 291, 130 0- 01 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; U

nit ed Sta tes v . Ch au , 426 F. 3d 13 18, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2005 ). H ere, the district court explicitlystated that the sentencing g uidelin es we re23

advis or y . A cc or din gly , w e fi nd L aB rake suf fe re d no vio la tio ns o f his S ixth Am en dm en t ri gh ts wit h re sp ectto hi s s en te nc e. T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s a ff

irm ed . AFFIR MED.