Opinion ID: 552784
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Public Official and 18 U.S.C.

Text: 17 Strissel was convicted of receiving bribes as a U.S. public official under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201. He argues that he does not fit within the definition of public official contained within Sec. 201(a) of that act: 18 [T]he term public official means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror[.] 19 (Emphasis added.) The appellant argues that he was not employed only by the federal government, and that his agency's funding was not entirely federal. True, Strissel also had some state responsibilities and state funding. However, he does not argue that he was not distributing federal monies in a program established by the federal government. 20 The appellant's argument must fail. In United States v. Velazquez, 847 F.2d 140 (4th Cir.1988), this Circuit adopted a broad reading of public official, drawing on the leading case from the Supreme Court: 21 To determine whether any particular individual falls within this category, [public officials], the proper inquiry is not simply whether the person has signed a contract with the United States or agreed to serve as the Government's agent, but rather whether the person occupies a position of public trust with official Federal responsibilities. Persons who hold such positions are public officials within the meaning of Sec. 201 and liable for prosecution under the Federal bribery statute. 22 Id. at 142 (emphasis added), quoting Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482, 496, 104 S.Ct. 1172, 1179, 79 L.Ed.2d 458 (1984). In Velazquez, this Court found that a state employee (a county deputy sheriff) working in a federal prison, guarding both state and federal prisoners, and being paid entirely by the state, was a public official within the meaning of this section. He had aided the escape of several federal prisoners in return for a bribe. This Court noted that it did not matter that the deputy received no federal funds, and that he had no contract with the federal government. The nature of his responsibilities was federal, and thus he was a public official. Id. Given that precedent, Strissel cannot argue that he was not a federal official. He administered federal funds in a federal program, and the nature of his responsibilities in this case was clearly federal.