Opinion ID: 202099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extortion by an Elected Official

Text: The district court increased Cruzado's offense level by eight points under § 2C1.1(b)(2)(B), which states: If the offense involved a payment for the purpose of influencing an elected official or any official holding a high-level decision-making or sensitive position, increase by 8 levels. Cruzado was convicted for being on the receiving end of various corrupt pay-offs, and he argues that this provision only applies when a defendant has made, rather than received, the payment. Nothing in the quoted language suggests that this is so. The provision reflects the Sentencing Commission's determination that the abuse of a position of great public trust, or the effort to corrupt a person holding such a position, is more dangerous than the corruption of, for example, a housing inspector or tax assessor. The eight-level increase is mandated for a defendant precisely like the defendant here, an elected official who abuses his position. Extortion involves payments intended to influence the behavior of the extortioner just as clearly as bribery involves payments intended to influence the bribe-taker.8 See United States v. Bynum, 327 F.3d 986, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Villafranca, 260 F.3d 374, 381-82 8 Nor is the rule of lenity applicable, as Cruzado claims: there is nothing at all ambiguous in § 2C1.1. -8- (5th Cir. 2001). The district court correctly applied an eightlevel enhancement under § 2C1.1(b)(2)(B).