Opinion ID: 499755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sale of Government Property

Text: 13 Under Sec. 641, the Government must prove the elements of the offense of sale of government property: (1) the property belonged to the United States, (2) Medrano sold, conveyed, or disposed of such property, (3) he did so willingly and knowingly without authority, and (4) the property had a value in excess of $100. Medrano claims that two of these elements are lacking. First he claims that there is insufficient evidence to establish that he sold conveyed or disposed of Border Crossing Cards. Medrano also argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish the value of the Border Crossing Cards as exceeding $100. We first address his claim regarding the sale and then his claim on valuation of the cards. 14 Medrano argues that the card at issue is the permanent Border Crossing Card, which he had no authority to issue and that his approval of an application for a temporary card could not be construed as selling, conveying, or disposing. The evidence establishes that a temporary card provides the bearer with the same rights as a permanent card, and that Medrano's approval of the application for the temporary card virtually assured the applicant of obtaining a permanent card. 15 Although Border Crossing Cards are issued free of charge, Medrano was, for a fee, approving the applications of people who, for various reasons, were not qualified. By furnishing the applicant with the temporary Border Crossing Card, Medrano was essentially selling a package deal, and facilitating the acquisition of a permanent Border Crossing Card. Because of this Court's holding that the government need not prove actual property loss under Sec. 641, United States v. Barnes, 761 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir.1985), Medrano's activity constitutes selling, conveying, or disposing, under the statute. He was not merely providing a service; he was selling the actual card. 16 Medrano also argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish the value of the property sold as being in excess of $100. He reasons that although all the applicants but one paid over $100 for the entire package deal, Medrano himself only received $50. He claims that he sold, if anything, only temporary Border Crossing Cards, and that these were not worth $100. As we have already stated, Medrano was selling a package deal, not merely a temporary Border Crossing Card. The temporary card virtually assured issuance of the permanent card within 90 days. Thus, the value of the government property sold by Medrano is determined with respect to the entire transaction, culminating in the applicant's possession of a permanent Border Crossing Card. 17 As a general rule, value under Sec. 641 is determined by market forces--the price at which the minds of a willing buyer and seller would meet. United States v. DiGilio, 538 F.2d 972, 979 (3d Cir.1976). Thus, the evidence of the price paid by the applicants, which exceeded $100 in every case but one, suffices to support a valuation consistent with Sec. 641. Count 15, however, involves an applicant paying less than $100, and must be reversed.