Opinion ID: 3049934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: statute of limitations in wilson trial

Text: In the Wilson case, defendant PUGH claims the district court erred by denying its motion to dismiss Count 75 as time-barred under the five-year statute of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282.87 Count 75 charged that from about August 1999 and continuing though June 2000, defendants PUGH and Wilson (as the JCESD’s Chief Engineer) entered into a bribery conspiracy whereby Wilson corruptly solicited and accepted, and PUGH corruptly gave, a $4,500 payment (in the form of a bogus scholarship for Wilson’s son) with the intent of influencing and rewarding Wilson for supporting PUGH’s interests in connection with the JCESD sewer rehabilitation reconstruction program. Count 75 alleged that an object of the conspiracy was for Wilson to enrich himself and that PUGH and Wilson conspired to conceal PUGH’s payment to Wilson by having it disguised as a bogus scholarship to UAB. PUGH argues that Count 75 falls outside of the five-year limitations period because the latest overt act by a co-conspirator charged in the Indictment — Grady 87 “We review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Clarke, 312 F.3d 1343, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). “We review the district court’s interpretation and application of statutes of limitations de novo.” Id. 110 Pugh’s sending a $4,500 check to UAB — was committed no later than August 24, 1999, which was outside the limitations period of February 7, 2000 to February 7, 2005.88 The government responds that the Indictment charged Wilson’s receipt of the benefit of UAB’s four quarterly disbursements to his son as four separate overt acts, and the last two disbursements (March 17 and June 7, 2000) were made to the son within five years of PUGH’s indictment on February 7, 2005. In reply, PUGH stresses that it is undisputed that UAB and Wilson’s son were not members of the bribery conspiracy, and thus there was no overt act by a co-conspirator within the limitations period. “In a conspiracy prosecution brought under § 371 the government in order to avoid the bar of the limitation period of § 3282 must show the existence of the conspiracy within the five years prior to the return of the indictment, and must allege and prove the commission of at least one overt act by one of the conspirators within that period in furtherance of the conspiratorial agreement.” United States v. Davis, 533 F.2d 921, 926 (5th Cir. 1976); see Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396, 77 S. Ct. 963, 969-70 (1957) (addressing a three-year limitations period and concluding the government must prove that conspiracy was still in 88 In this statute of limitations calculation, the parties use the February 7, 2005 date of the initial indictment. While the initial indictment itself bears the dates of February 3 and February 7, we use what the parties use. 111 existence at beginning of limitations period and that at least one overt act was performed after that date); United States v. Dynalectric Co., 859 F.2d 1559, 1564 n.6 (11th Cir. 1988) (stating if an overt act is necessary for the commission of the conspiracy, then “the indictment must charge and the evidence at trial must show that an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was made within the limitations period”). By contrast, for “conspiracy statutes that do not require proof of an overt act, the indictment satisfies the requirements of the statute of limitations if the conspiracy is alleged to have continued into the limitations period.” United States v. Gonzalez, 921 F.2d 1530, 1548 (11th Cir. 1991) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (determining RICO conspiracy statute, unlike the general federal conspiracy statute, does not require an overt act). Unlike conspiracy statutes that do not require proof of an overt act,89 the conspiracy statute PUGH was charged under, 18 U.S.C. § 371, does require proof of an overt act. See 18 U.S.C. § 371 (requiring that “one or more [co-conspirators] do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy”). As recounted above, Wilson solicited the bribe to help pay his son’s college 89 For example, neither a drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 nor a RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) requires proof of an overt act. See United States v. Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099, 1121 (11th Cir. 1990) (drug conspiracy); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120, 1124 (11th Cir. 1983) (RICO conspiracy). 112 expenses in mid-1999, and Grady Pugh mailed a $4,500 check to UAB on August 24, 1999. Because the tuition had already been paid by FWDE, Wilson did not actually receive the full benefit of the $4,500 check until UAB disbursed the final installment to Wilson’s son in June 2000. The money disbursed to the son was a benefit to Wilson because he would otherwise have paid his son’s expenses himself. Furthermore, where enrichment is an object of a conspiracy, the conspiracy continues until the conspirators receive the full economic benefits anticipated by their scheme, and a conspirator’s receipt of a benefit can be considered an overt act. See United States v. Anderson, 326 F.3d 1319, 1328 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Girard, 744 F.2d 1170, 1171-74 (5th Cir. 1984). For example, in Anderson, the defendants conspired to obtain contracts by rigging bids in violation of antitrust laws and § 371. Id. at 1323. Although the bid-rigging contracts were beyond the limitations period, the final payment on one of the contracts came within it. Id. at 1328. The defendant Anderson contended that the final “payment was not an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy but merely the result of the conspiracy.” Id. This Court held that a conspirator’s acceptance of payment on the illegally obtained contract constituted an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy and brought the conspiracy within the statute of limitations. Id. Although acceptance or receipt of a benefit can be an overt act, that overt act 113 must be an act that is knowingly committed. See United States v. Hogue, 812 F.2d 1568, 1579 (11th Cir. 1987) (stating as an “essential element[]” of a § 371 offense that “the overt act was knowingly committed”); Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases) at 137 (2003) (“An ‘overt act’ [under § 371] is any transaction or event . . . which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.”). The jury in the Wilson trial was correctly instructed on this point. The problem for the government is the last two disbursements in 2000 were from a non-conspirator (UAB) to another non-conspirator (the son), and the government presented no evidence that defendant PUGH (through Grady Pugh) or Wilson knew that Wilson was receiving part of the benefit of the $4,500 in March or June 2000, rather than all at once in August 1999. There is also no evidence that Grady Pugh or Wilson gave any direction to UAB after August 24, 1999. At trial, Grady Pugh testified he was unaware of UAB’s disbursement arrangements, and no evidence contradicted him on that point. Likewise, there was no evidence that Wilson was aware of the timing of the disbursements or that Wilson had any communications at all with UAB after the $4,500 check was sent on August 24, 1999. Accordingly, Wilson’s receipt of the benefit of the March and June 2000 disbursements cannot be considered “overt acts” knowingly committed by him, 114 and the bribery conspiracy in Count 75 was beyond the statute of limitations.90 For these reasons, we reverse PUGH’s conviction on Count 75.