Bruce Bereano v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2732
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bereano appeals a district court denial of coram nobis relief from 1994 mail fraud convictions.
- Skilling v. United States (2010) limited the honest services theory to bribery/kickbacks; Bereano argued this invalidated his §1346 charge.
- District court held Skilling error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to a money-focused core of the case.
- Bereano previously challenged the honest services theory at trial and on direct appeal; the Fourth Circuit rejected similar constitutional challenges.
- Judgment affirmed; coram nobis relief denied because Skilling error was not a fundamental error under the standard applicable to such writs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skilling error is an error of the most fundamental character for coram nobis. | Bereano argues the error is fundamental and warrants relief. | Government concedes error but contends harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | No; error not fundamental given the core money-focused theory and harmlessness standard. |
| Whether Neder harmless-error standard applies to Skilling error in coram nobis. | Bereano contends Neder applies to determine relief. | Government relies on Neder to assess harmlessness. | Applied; court endorses Neder-based harmlessness review in this context. |
| Whether Bereano was entitled to coram nobis relief given the verdict rested on a valid pecuniary-fraud theory. | Bereano would prevail if honest services error tainted the verdict. | Even with honest services error, the verdict would rest on pecuniary fraud evidence. | Verdict supported by legally adequate ground; no relief where core burden rests on pecuniary fraud. |
| Whether the four coram nobis prerequisites were satisfied. | Bereano satisfied prerequisites other than fundamental-error element. | prima facie prerequisites shown; not the fundamental-error standard. | Prerequisites largely met; but lacking fundamental-error status to warrant relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (Supreme Court 2010) (limits honest services theory to bribery/kickbacks; due process concerns)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (harmless-error standard for constitutional trial errors)
- Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court 1957) (need to determine which theory supported a general verdict)
- Jefferson v. United States, 674 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2012) (ratified Neder harmless-error standard in Fourth Circuit)
- United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir. 1988) (coram nobis prerequisite framework)
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (Supreme Court 2009) (All Writs Act basis for coram nobis; limits and uses)
- United States v. Black, 625 F.3d 386 (7th Cir. 2010) (Skilling harmless-error application in separate circuits)
- United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (1914) (fundamental-error characterization for coram nobis)
- Hastings v. United States, 134 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 1998) (illustrates essential-harm threshold for modification)