Opinion ID: 3015470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: LaGrossa

Text: LaGrossa makes two arguments concerning sufficiency of the evidence. First, he argues that no rational juror could have found that the payments he received were extortionate kickbacks because the money was given to him to help defray costs associated with his son’s medical care. Second, he argues that no rational juror could 3 As to Harris’s arguments under 18 U.S.C. § 666, the Government correctly concedes that it did not prove that the $5,000 threshold was met for the time period charged in Count 22. Therefore, his conviction under Count 22 cannot stand. The effect on Harris’s sentence is better addressed on remand—which must occur in any event in light of Booker. 8 have found a Hobbs Act violation because the evidence did not show payment to City employees (as opposed to mere overbilling by AAA). Both arguments are unpersuasive. The first argument is contradicted by Fafalios’s testimony. Specifically, he testified that he gave LaGrossa money (though perhaps to be used in connection with Lauderdale’s son’s medical expenses) with the understanding that Lauderdale would “sign a false invoice.” (Lauderdale App. 453a.) As we do not weigh the credibility of the witnesses at this stage of the proceedings, Fafalios’s testimony is sufficient to rebut Lauderdale’s argument. Second, LaGrossa argues that AAA was involved in two distinct schemes. As to the first alleged scheme, he contends AAA submitted totally false invoices, and the City employee who signed them received a kickback. Under the second alleged scheme, AAA overbilled the City. For the latter scheme, LaGrossa asserts that AAA did not need a City employee’s knowing involvement because the overbilling was not apparent on the face of the inflated invoice. LaGrossa also points out that Fafalios testified that he did not know whether kickbacks were given for inflated (as opposed to completely false) invoices. Contending that the Government failed to link him to a false invoice signed after January 24, 1997, LaGrossa takes the position that the Government has not proven a Hobbs Act violation. We disagree. Though LaGrossa strenuously argues that Fafalios’s testimony on this point significantly helps his case, viewed in context the testimony helps LaGrossa at most only minimally. That is, Fafalios’s role in the scheme did not include preparing the 9 fraudulent invoices—that task was performed by Camaratta. For this reason, Fafalios’s testimony is consistent with his role in the scheme and has little bearing on LaGrossa’s arguments. Further, there is an absence of evidence in the record affirmatively suggesting that AAA distinguished between false and inflated invoices. Supporting the Government’s position is the testimony of Kevin Kelly, a Government witness and former City employee who testified that he received kickbacks from AAA for signing off on inflated invoices. Notwithstanding that Kelly’s involvement with AAA ended several years before the limitations period, his testimony shows that AAA’s schemes involving City employees included inflated invoices. In view of these considerations, sufficient evidence exists to counter this argument as well.4