## 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. 12

- 1918 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D OMI NI CKO WEN S, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di stric tC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stric to f I llino is, Eas tern Di v isi on. No . 1:09- cr -00775- 1

—Blan ch e M. Man nin g, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 11, 2012

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 11, 2012

Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . A j ury convi cted Dom i ni ck Ow ens, a Ci ty ofChica go zonin g in sp ecto r, o ftwo co unts o f f edera l pro gr am br iber y, 18 U
. S. C. § 6 66( a) ( 1) ( B), f or ac c ep tin g t w o $ 6 00 br ibe s in ex c h an ge for iss u in g c er tific a t e s o fo c c up a nc y f o r f o urn e wl y c o ns t r uc t e d h o mes . On appeal , Ow ens c hal l enges the suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence re gar ding w hetherthe i ss u ance o fthe cer ti fi cate s o f occupancy had a val ue o f$5 , 000 orm or e a s r equi re d by2 N o. 12

- 1918 § 66 6( a) ( 1) ( B)

. Be ca us e w e find th er e was i ns uf fi ci en t ev i den ce from whi cha j ur y c o ul d fi nd g ui l t be y o nd a r eas onabl e doubt on thi s e l em ent, we re ver se.

I . B AC KGR OUND Dom i ni ck Ow ens was a zoni ng i nspectorf orthe City ofChica go’ s Zoni ng Depart m ent. The Zoni ng Depart

m en t was r es po ns ibl e f o r e nf o r ci ngthe Ci ty ’ s zo ni ng o r di na nc e, r ev i ewi ng a nd a ppr o vi nga r ch i te ctur alpl an s f o r the c o ns tr uct i o n o fne w si ng l e-f ami l y ho m es , a nd i nspectin g new l y c onst ructe d hom es. A f teran i nspecti o n, i fa new ly cons tr uct ed ho m e co m pl i ed wi ththe zoni ng o rdi nance a nd a zoning i nspectorwas sat i sfi ed th ati t was “ sa fe to o cc upy , ” th e Zo ni ngDe par tment i ss ue d a c er ti fi cate o fo cc upa nc y c er ti fy i ngtha t th e ho m e was “ r ea dy to b e liv ed i n a nd us ed. ” Under the zoni ng o rdi nance, a bui l ding m ay not be o ccu p ied unl ess a c e r t i fi c a t e o fo c c up a nc y h a s b e e n i s s ue d. C h ris to ir M c P h illip , th e g ov er n m en t c oo p er at or in t h is case , w as an a cquai ntance ofOw ens a nd an “ exped iter”

— so m eo ne who pe r f o r m s th e “l eg work” ofthe zoni ng pro cess o n beh al fo fdevel oper s, co ntra cto rs , and m em ber s of the publi c by m aki ng appoi ntm ents, com ple ti ng paperwork, and att ending m eet i ngs with Zoni ng Depart m ent e m plo yee s. Pri orto the bribes at i ssue i n thi s ca se, M cPhil l i p had p ai d Ow ens b rib es f or the e xped i ted i ssuance ofcer ti fi cate s o fo ccupancy on at l eas t e i ght o ccasi ons. I n the sum m er of 200 6, M cPhil l i p becam e a co nfi denti al i n f o r ma n tf o r th e F B I a n d r e c o r d e d p h o n e c a l l s a n d t woN o. 12

- 1918 3

m ee tin gs w ith O w en s t h at l ed to th e c h ar ge s in th is c as e. O n Ju ly 10 , 20 06 , M c P h illip c alle d O w en s a n d s a id that he nee de d c erti fi cate s o fo ccupancy f ortwo si ngl ef ami l y ho m es . Af te r l ea r ni ngthe addr es se s o fthe two ho m es , Owens c reat ed co m put err ec o r ds i ndi ca ti ng that both hom es had passed i nspecti on; nei th er hom e, how eve r, was eve r i nspected. The next day, afterse ver al r ec o r ded pho ne c al l s, M cP hi l l i p a nd Owen s m et o n the sid e o f a ro ad , an d M c P h illip p aid O w en s $ 60 0 in ca sh

. Owens a ckno wl ed ged afte r hi s ar r es t th athe ac ce pte d the mone y on J ul y 1 1 “i n e xc ha ng e f o r i ss ui ng qui ckc er ti fi ca te s o fo cc upa nc y ” an d “ex p edi ti ngthe p ro c es s fo r [M c P h illip ].” J us t o ve r a wee k l at er, the s ame s ce na r i o pl ay ed o ut aga i n. On J uly19 , 20 06, M cPhil l i p cal l ed Ow en s r egar ding tw o diff er ent s i ngl e- f am i ly re si dences a nd o nce aga i n sai d he needed expedit ed cer ti fi cate s o foc c u p ancy. O w en s a n d M c P h illip m et i n O w en s’ d riv ew ay th e fo ll owing day, and Ow ens a gai n acce pted $600 i n cash f ro m M cPhil l i p; Ow ens a dm i tt ed r ecei vi ng thi s m oney f r om M cP hi l l i p a f te r hi s ar r es t. No Zo ni ngDe par tment re cor ds i nd i cate thatOw en s ev er i nspected ei thero f the ho m es. A f terOw ens i ssued the cer ti fi cate s o fo ccupancy f or the f our h om es, M cPhil l i p and the FBIea ch r eta i ned copi es o fthe o r i g i na l s . T he Z o ni ngDe pa r t men ta l s o k e pt copi es ofthe cer ti fi cat es o fo ccupancy and m ai ntai ned c om p u te r re c or d s d oc u m en tin g th e iss u an c e of t h e c er tificate s because i t often re cei ves re quests f or copi es fro m ho m eo wner s, b an k s, a nd c o nt r ac to r s. The a ppl i ca ti o ns4 N o. 12

- 1918 f orthe cer ti fi cate s o f o c c up ancy f orthe f our hom es i nd i cate thatthe est i m ate d val ue o fthe constructi on w or k per f or m ed on e ach o fthe hom es ra nged f ro m $180 , 000 to $250 , 000. I n J uly20 06, m or tga ges were obta i ne d o n e ac h o fthe f o ur ho m es , wi thno te s r an g i ng f ro m $2 00, 000 to ove r $600 , 000 per hom e. O n Se pte mb e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , O we n s wa s a r r e s t e d

. He w ai ved i n d ictm ent a nd was char ged by i nfo rm ati on o n Decem ber30 , 20 09, with t w o counts offedera l pro gr am briber y i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 66 6( a) ( 1) ( B). The fi rs t count c harges O w ens with acce pti ng the J uly11 br ibe f o r the i ss ua nc e o ft wo c er ti fi ca te s o fo cc upa nc y ; the seco nd co unt char ges hi m with a ccepti ng the J uly20 bribe for th e seco n d p air of certi fi cate s. T he j ury con victed O w en s on both coun ts, an d th e d istri c t c o urt sente nced Ow ens t o a t er m o fi m pri sonm ent o ftwel ve m onths and one day.

I I . DI S C US S I ON On a ppea l, Owens a r g ue s tha t th er e was i ns uf fi ci en t evi dence to sup p or t the j ury’ s v er dict

. I n consi deri ng a ch al l en g e to the s uf fi ci en cy o fthe e vi den ce to s us ta i n a co nv i ct i o n, we m ay r ev er se the c o nv i ct i o n o nl y ifno r at i o na l t r i ero ffact , v i ewi ngthe e vi den ce i n the l i g ht m o stf av o r ab l e to the Go vern m ent, c o ul d ha ve f o und t he de f e nd a nt ’ s g ui l tb e y o nd a r e a s o nab l e do ubt

. U nited St at e s v. Gor m an, 613 F.3d 711 , 715 (7th C ir. 2010). The fede r alpr o g r am br ibe r y s ta tu te , a s r el ev an t here , pro hibi ts age nts o ffedera l l y fund ed enti ti es f ro mN o. 12

- 1918 5

B ecau se w e find thatthe G overnm ent’ s evidence w as in su f- 1 fi ci en tt o m ee ti t s bur den, we ne ed n otr ea c h Ow en s ’ ar gum ents re g ar di ng the e vi denc e he e l i c i t ed a tt ri al thathe contends e stabli shed thatthe ce rt ific ates ofoccupancy had li tt le or no value. sol i ci ti ng o r accepti ng “a nythi ng o fval ue . . . inte nd i ng to be i nfl uenced . . . in c onnecti on with any busi ness, tr ansac ti o n, o r s er i es o ft r an sa cti o ns . . . i nv o l vi nga ny thi ng of val ue of $5,000 or m ore[. ]” 1 8 U .S.C. § 666(a)(1)( B ). Owens c o nc edes thatthe Go ve r nm en t pr o ve d a l l b ut one el em ent o f § 666( a) ( 1) ( B); hi s s ol e chal l enge i s t o the s uffi ci ency ofthe evi dence r ega rdi ng th e r equi re m ent that t h e “bu si ness” o r “tr ansact i on” soughtto be infl ue nc ed inv olved a “ th ing of value of $5,000 or m ore[. ]” I n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 663 F. 3d 265 ( 7th C ir . 2 011), we s ai d tha t th i s el emento f§ 6 66 ( a) mean s t ha t “the subjec t m a ttero fthe br ibe m ust be val ued at $ 5, 000 or m or e; th e b rib e it se lf ne ed on ly b e ‘a n y t h i n g of v alu e.’ ” Id. at271 ( ci ti ng U nite d State s v. D uvall , 84 6 F

. 2d 966, 97 6 (5 t h C ir. 1988 ))

. Ow en s con ten d s tha t the re w as insu ffi ci ent e vi dence t h at the v al ue o fthe subj ect m att er o f the b ribes i n thi s ca se

— i denti fi ed i n the i nfo rm ati on a s the i ssuance ofthe f our cer ti fi cate s o fo ccupancy

— m et the $ 5, 000 thre shol d and that the ev i dence i nste ad sugges ted thatthe cer ti fi cate s were i nval i d and w or thl ess . 1 T he Go vern m en t a d m its that th e issuan ce of the certifi cate s o fo ccupancy i n thi s ca se “d oes nothave an e asi l yq u a n t i fi e d e x a c td o l l a r v a l u e . ” S e c t i o n 6 6 6 ( a ) i s a mbi guous on the questi on o fhow to m eas ure val ue, and w e a nd o ther ci rcui ts have adopted a v ar i ety o f6 N o. 12

- 1918 approaches to deter m i ne the va lu e of the subj ect m att er o fa b r ibe wheni t i s ani nt an g ibl e be ne fi t o r i ts v al ue i s di f fi cul t to qua nt i fy . The e as i es t an d m o sto bv i o us w ay is b y looki ng athow m uch som eone i n the m ar ket w as wil l i ng to pay f orthe benefi t a nd an o f fi ci al was w illing to ta k e t o p ro vid e t h e b en efit

— th e va l ue o fthe bribe. Thi s m eans that the b ribe a m ount “ m ay suf fi ce as a pr o xy f o r v al ue ; a t l east it p ro vi des a fl o o r f o r the val ua tio n questi on. ” Robi ns on, 66 3 F .3d at 27 5; see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Towns e nd, 63 0 F
. 3d 1003 , 101 2 (1 1th Cir

. 20 11) ( “[ T]he val u e ofan i ntangibl e i n the bl ack m ar keto fco rr up ti on i s s et at the m onet ary va l ue o f w hat a w i l l i ng bribe- gi ver gi ves and w hat a wil l i ng br ibeta ke r ta ke s i n e x c h an ge for t h e in ta n gib le.” ); U nited State s v. M arm olej o , 89 F. 3d 1185 , 11 94 ( 5th Ci r. 19 96) ( ar ri vi ng atan e st im at e ofthe val ue o fco nj ugal vi si ts ob ta in ed th ro u g h t h e br ibe ry of p ris on offic ials “in the s am e way an apprai serwould v alue a n ass et

—by loo kin g a t h ow m u c h a p er so n in t h e m ar ke t w ou ld b e w illing to p ay for th em ”) (cit at ion om itt e d ) . T h is m etho d o fv al ua ti o n do es no t he l p the Go vernm en t me e ti t s b u r d e n i n th i s c a s e ; O we n s ’ a c c e pt a n c e o ft wo $600 bribes i n e x c h a n g e for th e issuan ce of the certifi c a t e s f a l l s f a r s ho r to fthe $ 5 , 0 0 0 thr e s ho l d. A noth er ap proa ch to val uingthe subj ect m att er o f the b ribe i s by l oo ki ng to the val ue o fthe benefi t the br ibeg i ve r wi l l r ec ei ve i fthe b r ibe i s su cc es sful

. I n U nited State s v. C ure sc u , 674 F
. 3d 735 (7t h Ci r. 20 12) , f or exam ple , a devel oper had used an unl i censed pl um ber to add pl u m b i ng to f our new l y c onst ructe d res i denti al unit s. A pl um bi ng i nspectordi sco ver ed the vi ol ati onN o. 12

- 1918 7

an d t o l d the de ve l o pertha t he ha d t o r edo the pl um bi ng u sin g a lice n se d p l u m b e r . Id. at73 8. Ratherthan re m ovi ng the o l d plum bi ng and r epl aci ng it u si ng a l i censed plum ber, a diff er ent plum bi ng i nspector was bribed to ce rt i fy f al sel y that a l i censed pl um berhad com ple ted the plu m b in g i n the f our unit s, wh i ch al l owed th e il leg al plu m b in g t o r e m ain
. Id. Thu s, the v al ue o fthe false cer ti fi cati on was the m oney the devel oper di d not have to spend re doi ng the pl um bi ng, an a m ount that ex c ee d ed $5 ,00 0. Id. at743 ; se eal s o Rob i ns on , 66 3 F
. 3d at2 67, 2 76 ( appr o vi ngo fthe us e o fthe “ es ti m at ed va l ue ofan i l l i ci t ‘ l i cense’ to se l l co cai ne” a s a m eas ure of val ue i n a case i n w hi ch a coca i ne- tr affi cke r at tem pted to bribe a pol i c e offi certo “g et the he at off ” hi s drugse lling oper ati on)

. Thi s m etho d ofval uati on i s no t l i m i te d t o the brib e- g i ve r ; c o ur ts may al so c o ns i derthe v a l u e o fth e be n e fi tt o r e l a t e d p a r t i e s “ wi t h a n i mm edi ate i nter esti n the tr ansact i on. ” Se eU ni t e d Stat e s v. H ines , 541 F.3d 833 , 837 (8th C ir. 2008). R ec og n izin g t h at th e b rib e a m ou n t in t h i s c as e w ou ld no t ta k e i t over th e st atut o r y thr es ho l d, the Go ve r nm en t re lied on th e b en efit -of-t h e-b rib e a p p ro ac h at tria l. I n doi ng so , the G ov ernm ent o f f er ed evi dence i t be

l i eve d establ i shed the val ue o fthe cer ti fi cate s o fo ccupa nc y fr o m the per spe ct i ve s o fthe de ve l o per s an d hom eowners ofthe f our hom es f orwh i ch Ow ens i ss ued the c er ti fi cate s. The G ove rnm ent pr ese nted m or tga ge docum ents showing that the ho m eo w ners r ecei ved m or tgag es w i th not es ra ngi ng fro m $2 00, 000 to ove r $600 , 000 to p u rchase the f our hom es, and zo ni ng docum ents i nd i c a t i n g th a tth e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s f o r e a c h h o me8 N o. 12

- 1918

w er e e sti m ate d to be b etw ee n $180, 000 and $250, 000. Acco r di ngt o the Go ve r nm en t, the mor tg ag e va l ue s an d const ructi on c os ts forthe hom es, “co up l ed w i th the f act th at h om es co u ld n ot be oc c u p ie d w ith ou t c er tific at es ,” perm i ts “the re aso nabl e i nfe re nce that the ce rt i ficate s i nvol ved so m ethi ng va l ued at $ 5,00 0 or m or e. ” W e di sagr ee. To u nd e r sta nd wh y the Go v e r nme nt ’ s e v i de nc e f a i l e d, we mus t l o o k mo r e c l o s e l y a t t h e “ s u b j e c t ma t t e r ” o ft he br ibe s ati ss ue i n th i s ca se . The i nf o r m at i o n i den ti fi es “ th e i s s u a n c e o f t h e c e r t i fi c a t e s o f o c c u p a n c y ” f o r t he f o ur pr o per ti es a s th e “thi ngo fv alue of$ 5, 00 0 o r mor e, ” an d th ati s whatthe Go ve r nm en t ar gu ed a t tr i ala nd mai nta in s o n appeal

. I t ca nnot be thatsi m ple , tho ugh, as anyo ne w ho com pli es w i th the Board of Zoni ng p ro c edu re s a nd has a ho m e that pass es in sp ecti on ca n re cei ve a ce rt i fi cate o fo ccupancy f orfre e. Obtai ni ng the i ssua n ce ofthe cer ti fi cate s th ro ugh gr eas i ng a pal m r atherthan th roug h l eg i ti m at e m ea ns mustthe r ef o r e cr ea te v al ue i n som e othe r w ay. Perhaps, as the Gover nm ent s ugges ts, i t i s o bt ai ni nga c er ti fi ca te wi th o uta n i ns pec ti o n. Thi s co ul d b e va l ua bl e i n a t lea stt wo way s. F i r sta nd m osto bvi ousl y, i fthe hom e’ s co nstr ucti on was de fecti ve a nd the ho m e woul d no t pas s i ns pec ti o n, pa y i ng a br ibe a nd avo i ding an i nspecti on would s av e the c ost ofper f or m i n g repai rs . A l ter nati vel y, a hom e co uld be f re e o fzo ni ng vi ol ati ons, but a deve l oper o r hom eowner p laces a p rem ium on ex p e d iting th e issuan ce of a certi fi ca te due t o a pr es si ngne ed to s el l o r o cc upy the hom e o r obt ai n a m ortg age w i th f avo rabl e a nd ti m ese ns i ti ve t er m s. The pr o bl em f o r th e Gov er nm en t, tho ug h,N o. 12

- 1918 9 i s that i t f ai l ed to p re se nt any ev i dence ofei thero fthes e si tuati ons i n thi s ca se, o r ofany si tuati on i n w hi ch the i ssuance ofthe c er ti fi cate s a s a r esul t o fthe bribes benefit ted the devel oper s o r hom eowners i n so m e way that the i ssuance ofthe cer ti fi cate s thro ugh legi ti m ate m ea n s w ou l d n ot h av e. C f. Cures cu , 674 F
. 3d at 741; H ines , 54 1 F

. 3d at 837 ( fi nd i ng ev i dence suffi c ient to su st ai n c o nv i ct i o n un der§ 6 66 ( a) ( 1) ( B) wher e ane xe cuti on deputy i n the sh er iff’s o f fi ce was pai d bribes “to eff ectuat e [ hi s] ti m ely p erf or m ance o f[ hi s] o f fi ci al d ut ies i nv olvi ng cou rt orders of eviction ” w he re proper ty own er s, l andlo rds, and l aw yer s t est i fi ed that “a l an dl o r d o r pro per tyownerl o se s a su bs ta nt i ala m o unt i n m ar ketval ue, r ent an d m or tga ge paym ents, and/o r prop e r t y da mag e e v e r y da y a de f a ul t i ngt e na nto r mo r tga ge e is in p os se ss ion o f th e p ro p er ty ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Z w ick, 1 99 F
. 3d 67 2, 6 90

- 91 ( 3d Ci r . 1 99 9) ( no ti ngtha t th e $ 5 ,0 0 0 t h re sh old w as m et be c au se , inte r alia , the b r ibegi ver s “ w oul d have l ost $ 10, 000 had they not re cei ved [th e p er m its fo r w h ich th ey p aid th e b rib e] in a tim ely m an n er ”), a bro ga ted o n o ther g rou nd s b y S a bri v. U nited Sta tes , 541 U
. S. 6 00, 124 S.C t. 1941 , 158 L

. E d

. 2d 891 (2004). Perhaps re cogni zi ng the pro bl em i t has i n re l yi ng o n the v al ue o fthe i ssuance ofthe cer ti fi cate s a l one to m eeti ts b u rd en, the Gover nm ent s el ecti vel y c i tes lan gu ag e fro m § 66 6(a )(1) ( B ) an d co n te n d s t h at it d id not need to pro ve that the i ssuance of the ce rt i fi cate s w as w or th m or e than $5, 000, “but onl y that the i ssuance o fthe c e r t i fi c ate s inv o lved anythi ng va l ued at $ 5, 000 or m o r e. ” Thus , the Go ve r nm en t ar g ue s, b ec au se the i ssuan c e o fthe cer ti fi cate s “ i nvol ved so m ethi ng” worth10 N o. 12

- 1918

The Gover nm en tal s o a rg ued a tt ri al that the i s s uan c e of 2 t he c er t i fica t es ofoc c upanc y “ i nvol ved” the “c or ru pt i on of [ O w ens’ ] core functi ons” as a zoning i nspect or, and theref ore thatthe j ury should consi de r hi s sal ary ofover $70, 000 a year i n va l ui ng the i s s uan c e ofthe c er t i fi c at es . The Gover nm en t wis el y c hos e nott o f oc us on t hi s ar gum en ton appe al

. Al t hough w e gave curs ory app roval t o the u se ofevidence ofpolic e officers’ salaries (in ad d ition to oth er ev id en ce of v alu e) in R obi nson , 66 3 F .3d at 27 5-76 , h e re th e G ov ern m en t ad m its O w en s’ sala ry is “a step rem ov ed f ro m the in d iv id u al tran sact ion” und erl ying the bribes. W e ac cordingly re jec t thi s arg u me n t b e c a u s e p e r mi t t i n g t h e s a l a r y e v i de n c e t o p u s h t he bribe s i n q ue s t i ono ve r the $ 5 , 0 0 0 thr e s ho l d wi t ho uta c l e arer rel ationshi p to the s ub j ectm att er ofthe bribe wo uld read the requir em ent out ofthe s tatute wh enever an offic ial charged und er § 666( a) ( 1) ( B) earned a sal ary great er than $5, 000. m or e than $5, 000

— th e m o r tgage s on the ho m es a nd the const ructi on co sts

— i tme tthe s t a t ut o r y thr e s ho l d. W e r ej e c tthi s o v e r l y e xp a ns i v e i nt e r pr e t a t i o n of § 6 66 (a)( 1)(B ). Su c h a b ro ad r ea d in g of “ in vo lvin g” w ou ld re nd er the $5, 000 th re shol d m eani ngl ess , and w e hav e cl ear ly sai d that § 66 6( a) r equi re s that “ the subjec t m a tter ofthe bribe”

— not som ethi ng to wh i c h t h e subj ect m att er ofthe bribe i s t angenti al l y r el ate d

— “m ust b e v al ued at $5, 000 orm or e. ” Se eRob i ns on , 663 F. 3d at 27 1. B ecause the Go v e r nme ntf a i l e d t o p utf o r t h a ny e v i dence l i nki ng the m or tga ges and the const ructi on c os ts to the v al ue o ft h e issuance o fthe cer ti fi cate s, i t f ai l ed to prove thatthe subj ect m att er o fthe bribes i n questi on he r e me tthe s t a t ut o r y thr e s ho l d. 2N o. 12

- 1918 11 I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe fore goi ng r eas ons, we R EV ERSE the j udg m en t ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

10- 11- 12