Opinion ID: 29566
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pearson’s Testimony — Fiscal Years.

Text: Even with the assistance of evidence suggesting an indirect federal receipt in the amount of $12,900, the amount Pearson mentioned, the record does not support a jury finding that the $12,900 receipt occurred in calendar year 1997 or 1998. Pearson’s testimony was only that the receipt occurred in the City’s fiscal year ending in 1997 — a period that straddles calendar years 1996 and 1997 and does not suggest a specific calendar year. Other evidence does suggest a calendar year, however. Dr. Luster stated that the City received $12,900 for the 1996 Festival from NELAC, which funding originated with a NEA grant to NELAC on September 27, 1994. Through Dr. Luster’s efforts, NEA’s federal grant to NELAC was modified to extend its availability through September 14, 1996, 11 The counts are charged to have occurred over various periods between January 1997 and October 31, 1998. 7 the day of the 1996 Festival.12 A NELAC report to NEA shows $12,900 as the “federal share of outlays” during the period from 5/1/95 to 9/14/96 (ex. D-1338). This evidence cannot support a jury finding that the $12,900 was received in 1997. With no evidence to sustain a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the $12,900 receipt of indirect federal funds occurred in one of the calendar years charged, or that the other receipt Pearson mentioned ($10,09013) occurred at all, we cannot sustain the guilty verdict based on Pearson’s testimony. See United States v. Barrera, 547 F.2d 1250, 1255 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding that acquittal must be granted when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, is such that a reasonably minded jury must have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the essential elements of the crime charged). 2. Defendants’ Exhibits — Calendar Years 1997 and 1998. The alternative support the Government offers for the verdict is Defendants’ evidence. The City received a total of $10,027 for 1997 via the following checks: 12 Ex. D-1336; 11 R. 1570; see also ex. D-1334, Dr. Luster’s Final Descriptive Report (providing Festival dates). 13 Assuming that the $10,090 Pearson mentioned corresponds to the $10,000 LEH grant agreement of 1997, ex. D-1348, and further assuming some NEH financial support for this grant, see supra notes 7 & 10, we still have no evidence whatsoever to suggest how much of such grant comprised federal funds nor evidence demonstrating how much of the grant moneys were received in the calendar years at issue. (Other evidence reveals that not every payment of grant funds was received in the same calendar year as the grant agreement. Compare, e.g., 8/20/96 letter awarding grant #96-415024 (ex. D-1340) with LEH letter of 6/13/97 enclosing final payment for the grant (ex. D-1346)). 8 $7,590 LEH check dated June 13, 1997 (ex. D-1346); and $2,437 State of Louisiana, Department of Treasury check dated July 17, 1997 (ex. D-1348). The $7,590 check of June 1997 was part of LEH Grant #96-415024 in the amount of $10,000 for the Festival.14 We find sufficient evidence that this payment of $7,590 constituted federal funds, because the LEH letter of August 20, 1996, awarding the grant refers to the award as “This grant of federal funds.” Ex. D-1340. A reasonable jury might have inferred from that phraseology that the entirety of the grant was of federal origin, including every dollar of the $7,590 check received in June 1997.15 Our next question is therefore what portion of the $2,437 check of July 1997 was of federal origin. To show more than $10,000 of federal funding for the calendar year, the Government would have to prove that virtually all of the $2,437 received was of federal origin.16 The $2,437 check was part of DOA grant # 14 An LEH letter of 6/13/97 enclosed the $7,590 “final payment for mini-grant 96-415-024 (ex. D-1346); see also 8/20/96 letter awarding grant (ex. D-1340). 15 The City did not receive the remainder of this grant in 1997. See $2,560 LEH check dated 10/28/96 enclosed with a 10/28/96 LEH letter remitting “initial regrant payment” for proposal #96-415-024 for the 1996 Festival (ex. D-1345). It is not apparent why the two checks for grant #96-415-024 total $10,150 rather than $10,000. 16 To reach a calendar-year total exceeding $10,000, with the benefit of the $7,590 described above, more than $2,410 (99% of the check amount) would be needed from another federal source for that year. No evidence fills this gap. (For the reasons discussed supra note 13, the LEH grant dated 1997 provides insufficient evidence to fill that gap.) 9 FY97155.17 Some underlying federal (NEH) support for DOA grant # FY97155 is apparent from the evidence, but the evidence suggests multiple sources of support.18 Even considering this evidence most favorably to support the verdict, we find it insufficient to permit an inference beyond a reasonable doubt of how much of the $2,437 check from the State was of federal origin. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to bring the total federal funds for 1997 to more than $10,000. For calendar year 1998, the Government suggests that a total of $11,500 in federal funds was received by the City from the following two documents in evidence: $2,900 enclosed as “regrant payment” for the 1998 Festival per August 3, 1998, letter from LEH, re proposal #98-415-139 (ex. D-1344); and $8,600 check of December 21, 1998, from LEH (ex. D-1349). Both these payments were part of the July 14, 1998, LEH grant #98415-139 agreement for $11,500 to the City for the 1998 Festival.19 17 The check references an “Office of Cultural Development Arts Grant,” and invoice no. FY97155-2. Ex. D-1348. The first payment on this grant was remitted to the City via an 11/13/96 check, and so does not count for the 1997 calendar year. See 11/13/96 Department of Treasury check for $7,313 referencing invoice no. FY97155-1 (ex. D-1347 ); see also 7/2/96 and 8/2/96 letters explaining and awarding the grant (ex. D-1339). 18 The grant agreement for DOA grant # FY97155 requires the “statement ‘SUPPORTED BY A GRANT FROM THE [NEA], THE LOUISIANA STATE ARTS COUNCIL, AND THE LOUISIANA [DOA], OFFICE OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, RECREATION AND TOURISM’ [to] . . . appear in close proximity to the name of the grantee organization in ALL [publicity].” Ex. D-1339. Additionally, Dr. Luster testified that the DOA receives a portion of its operating expense from NEA and a portion from the State. 11 R. 1565-66. 19 See ex. D-1344 (including LEH letter transmitting to Dr. Luster $2,900 as “first installment payment for your 1998 regrant,” 10 The Government conceded in brief that LEH receives funds from NEH as well as from the State of Louisiana and corporate and individual donors, effectively admitting that a LEH grant contains some federal as well as some non-federal funds. To suggest that the foregoing receipts satisfy the statute, the Government also argues that the federal organizations retain control over “pass-through funds,” either through the grant agreements (such as requiring NEA approval for a regrant to programs around the state) or by statutory provisions requiring accountability or adherence to certain criteria. Assuming without deciding that the level of federal control means that the funds so distributed retained their character as federal funds, we must still find evidence in the record to support a jury finding that over $10,000 per year of such pass-through funds had federal origins. The Government provides not a single record reference to suggest how much of the $11,500 was of federal origin. Federal control cannot supply the missing element of a certain minimum dollar amount. It is not sufficient that the Louisiana State Arts Council, LEH, or NELAC strives to comply with the requirements of NEH and NEA or federal law. Nor is evidence that LEH is “affiliated with” NEH probative of the extent of financial dependence. We do not have to examine the level of federal “strings attached” to these grants, because no threshold showing payment request for $8,600 in 1998 out of total $11,500 LEH grant, and LEH grant agreement of July 14, 1998 for $11,500). 11 has been made that the minimum amount of federal funds was passed through the state agency to the City.