Opinion ID: 771974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Number of Bribes

Text: 16 Section 2C1.1(b)(1) states: If the offense involved more than one bribe or extortion, increase [the defendant's base offense level] by 2 levels. Application Note 6 to this section reads in full: 17 Subsection (b)(1) provides an adjustment for offenses involving more than one incident of either bribery or extortion. Related payments that, in essence, constitute a single incident of bribery or extortion (e.g., a number of installment payments for a single action) are to be treated as a single bribe or extortion, even if charged in separate counts. 18 U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1 cmt. n.6. 19 We have not previously explored the circumstances under which multiple payments may be said to constitute a single bribe for purposes of this provision. We have, however, reached the nearly indistinguishable question of whether an enhancement is warranted under § 2C1.1(b)(1) for multiple acts of extortion, see Middlemiss, 217 F.3d at 124, and several other courts have explored the provision in the context of bribery convictions. From these decisions we are able to discern several factors that courts have found useful in distinguishing between multiple and single incidents of bribery. 20 The first factor, which the district court found to be determinative in the case at bar, is whether, as stated in Application Note 6, the payments were made to influence a single action. See Middlemiss, 217 F.3d at 124 (upholding enhancement in sentence for extortion where final payment was a distinct payoff intended to achieve separate goal from earlier payments); Martinez, 76 F.3d at 1153 (upholding district court's finding of multiple bribes where payments were made in exchange for ongoing patient referrals); Kahlon, 38 F.3d at 470 (concluding that payments to promote different applications for work papers... were not installment payments for a single action.); United States v. Evans, 30 F.3d 1015, 1016-17, 1020 (8th Cir. 1994) (affirming, without analysis, district court's finding that § 2C1.1(b)(1) enhancement was warranted where defendant, a state insurance examiner, accepted bribes to approve two different insurance applications), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1028 (1995). 21 The district court concluded that Arshad had made more than one bribe because he made discrete payments to obtain (1) approval of his deficient painting work by the painting inspector; (2) authorization for more work hours by the painting inspect[or]; and (3) expedited approval by the building superintendent of payment for Arshad's past work. Because the record amply supports this finding -- indeed, Arshad does not seriously contest it-- we conclude that it was not clearly erroneous. We also agree with the district court's legal conclusion that the fact that different payments are intended to elicit different actions may, and does in this case, warrant treating the payments as multiple bribes and therefore imposing a two level enhancement under § 2C1.1(b)(1). 22 While conceding that his payments were meant to achieve different immediate goals, Arshad contends that they were all related to the NYCHA contract and therefore should have been treated as installment payments toward a single bribe. Appellant's Br. at 2, 5-6. But the commentary to §2C1.1(b)(1) forecloses this argument. In describing circumstances that may indicate a single bribe, Application Note 6 refers to payments for a single action. U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1, cmt. n.6. 2 Arshad would have us overlook the different actions his various payments were meant to elicit -- approval of deficient work, authorization for more work hours, and expedited approval of moneys owed -- because each payment was part of a larger scheme to obtain insulation from an overly rigorous inspection regime. Courts confronted with similar situations have uniformly held that multiple payments meant to influence more than one action should not be merged together for purposes of §2C1.1 merely because they share a single overall goal or are part of a larger conspiracy to enrich a particular defendant or enterprise. See Middlemiss, 217 F.3d at 124 (rejecting view that single incident of extortion took place because payments were related to same broad scheme to obtain and maintain a cafeteria lease); Martinez, 76 F.3d at 1153 (affirming conclusion that payments for separate actions under the guise of a single consulting contract comprised multiple bribes); Kahlon, 38 F.3d at 470 (holding that although payments to promote different work paper applications were part of a larger conspiracy, they were not installment payments for a single action.); United States v. Goodson, No. CRIM. 96-207-002, 2000 WL 680278, at , 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7578, at  (E.D. La. May 25, 2000) (holding that defendant's consistent end goal to protect his business . . . and to enrich himself and others involved was not enough to make multiple payments a single incident of bribery). 23 A second factor used by courts to determine whether multiple payments constitute more than one bribe or related payments toward a single bribe, although not addressed by the district court in this case, is derived from the reference in Application Note 6 to installment payments as distinguishable from multiple bribes. Taking their cue from that language, courts have looked to whether the pattern and amount of payments bear the hallmarks of installment payments, such as a regular schedule of payments over a finite period of time toward a fixed final sum, rather than a series of intermittent and varied bribes. See Middlemiss, 217 F.3d at 124 (upholding imposition of two-level enhancement under §2C1.1(b)(1) for multiple extortions, one consisting of regular monthly payments and the other of a lump sum payment); United States v. Morales, 11 F.3d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting argument that multiple payments constituted installments on single bribe in part because payments came . . . in different amounts and at different intervals); Martinez, 76 F.3d at 1153 (upholding finding that more than one bribery occurred where agreement was not for a final fixed sum paid in regular installments but instead was open-ended and involved occasional bonus payments); Goodson, 2000 WL 680278, at , 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7578, at  (enhancing offense level under §2C1.1(b)(1) where payments were separated in time and were...in different amounts and took different forms). 24 Arshad points to a certain commonality that was shared with respect to some of the payments: they were made, if not at regular intervals or in regular amounts, at least at a fixed rate of $10 per apartment. He therefore argues that they were, in effect, installment payments. But the payments to which he refers involve only his attempt to obtain approval for deficient work. Their commonality therefore does not support a finding that all of his payments, including those for authorization for more work hours and expedited approval of payment for past work, which did not share that commonality, together with those for approval of deficient work, were part of a single bribe. 25 Finally, courts other than the district court in this case have looked at whether the method for making each payment remains the same -- whether, for example, the payments involve the same payor and payee in each instance, and whether payments are made in the same form and by the same means. See Morales, 11 F.3d at 917 (upholding § 2C1.1(b)(1) enhancement where bribes came from various sources and were implemented by various means); Kahlon, 38 F.3d at 470 (finding that payments from different payors to different payees were not installment payments for a single action); Goodson, 2000 WL 680278, at -, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7578, at - (imposing enhancement in part because bribes were paid to two different payees). 26 Arshad therefore points out that [e]ach payment was made through the same method [i.e., cash] and made to the same inspector. Appellant's Br. at 6. But this is not enough to convert Arshad's payments into a single bribe. While the payments were all made to the inspector, in one case that inspector was but a conduit for the ultimate recipient of the funds, a superintendent who would hurry the [defendant's] paper work. More important, while the existence of multiple payees and payment methods may demonstrate the existence of multiple bribes, see Morales, 11 F.3d at 917; Kahlon, 38 F.3d at 470; Goodson, 2000 WL 680278, at -, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7578, at -, the opposite is not true: An identity of payees and payment methods does not, by itself, establish that separate payments for separate purposes constitute a single bribe. See Middlemiss, 217 F.3d at 124 (rejecting argument that a single incident of extortion took place because scheme involved same people and same form of cash payment). In Arshad's case, the payments were indisputably and undisputedly intended to achieve several distinct benefits for Arshad and were therefore more than one bribe irrespective of their manner of payment. 27 We need not determine in this case whether the first of the factors we have identified for distinguishing multiple bribes from payments toward a single bribe -- the fact that the payments were made to elicit different actions -- always trumps the other two factors. We cannot say that there will never be a case in which the pattern and method of payments so clearly demonstrate that they were [r]elated payments that, in essence, constitute a single incident of bribery, U.S.S.G. §2C1.1, cmt. n.6, that those factors will outweigh the strong evidentiary value that we expect typically will be attached to the first factor. Because we conclude that in the present circumstances the differing purposes of Arshad's separate payments clearly evidenced the existence of more than one bribe and because the other factors do not support his position that there was a single bribe, we affirm the district court's imposition of the multiple-bribe enhancement.