Opinion ID: 2999182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Vagueness of HUD Regulation

Text: Moore offers two reasons to find the HUD conflict-ofinterest regulation to be vague: first, that it does not define the term “immediate family,” and second, that it does not specify whether “salary” is included in “financial benefits.” This vagueness is enough, in her view, to preclude a conviction on due process grounds, because a criminal statute must provide “fair warning . . . in language that the common world will understand.” United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 265 (1997) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931)). The government counters that the alleged vagueness of the HUD regulation is irrelevant, because Moore was convicted under § 1001, not the regulation, and she is not arguing that § 1001 is too vague. In Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under § 1001, holding that the constitutionality of the underlying statute (§ 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act) was irrelevant. It reasoned that “a claim of unconstitutionality will not be heard to excuse a voluntary, deliberate and calculated course of fraud and deceit. One who elects such a course as a means of self-help may not escape the consequences by urging that his conduct be excused because the statute which he sought to evade is unconstitutional.” Id. at 68 (quoting Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 867 (1966)). See also United States v. Lawton, 366 F.3d 550, 553-54 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Weatherspoon, 581 F.2d 595, 601 (7th Cir. 1978). The only distinction between Bryson, Lawton, and Weatherspoon, on the one hand, and Moore’s case, on the other, is that the former involved false statements and the latter involved scheming to avoid disclosing material information. Once the duty to disclose is established, however, as we are satisfied it is here, that distinction is of no importance. As in Bryson, the jury in this case necessarily found that Moore acted knowingly or intentionally. Her conviction does 18 No. 04-2989 not depend on any mistake of law with regard to the scope of the HUD regulations as reflected in Milwaukee’s form contract. It rests instead on her repeated decisions to avoid revealing her relationship with Cameron, to give false information about her sister’s continued employment at WH, and to provide misleading information designed to throw the City off the track. The City unquestionably had the authority to ask Moore the questions it did, and the information she gave and withheld was material. That is enough.