UA v. Cedric Duane Ryans
709 F. App'x 611
11th Cir.2017Background
- July 29, 2014 traffic stop of Willie Leggs produced ~85 grams of cocaine; Leggs agreed to cooperate with the STAC unit and later sought to avoid prosecution.
- Leggs stored large sums of cash (reported $60,000–$90,000) and drugs at Cedric Ryans’s house; Ryans acted as an intermediary between Leggs and officers.
- Ryans arranged and delivered cash payments to Huntsville police officer Lewis Hall to bribe Officer Tory Green to make Leggs’s arrest/charge “disappear.” Ryans gave Hall $8,000 total; Hall gave Green $1,000 and spent the rest.
- STAC and Internal Affairs set up a sting; Green wore a wire and reported Hall’s solicitations; Hall later admitted to receiving $8,000 and pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery.
- Ryans was indicted on conspiracy to commit bribery (18 U.S.C. § 371), aiding and abetting bribery (18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) and 2), and aiding and abetting obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) and 2); convicted on all counts after a four-day trial and sentenced to concurrent 30-month terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) — whether bribe was "in connection with" a transaction involving $5,000+ | Govt: § 666(a)(2) covers intangibles; market value of intangible (freedom from jail) can be measured by bribe amounts; Ryans paid $8,000 so threshold met | Ryans: evidence insufficient to show bribe connected to a City transaction involving $5,000 or more; actual officer received only $1,000 | Court: Affirmed. Intangible (freedom) counts; market approach uses what bribe-giver gives — Ryans’s $8,000 meets $5,000 requirement; actual receipt of $1,000 immaterial |
| Denial of extension / untimely Rule 29 post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal | Ryans: needed transcripts and more time; court granted initial extension but denied later requests; counsel’s workload and transcript timing excused delay | Govt: motion untimely; Rule 29 deadlines and excusable neglect standard not satisfied; no prejudice shown | Court: Affirmed. Five-month delay after extended deadline not excused; Pioneer factors do not favor Ryans; no prejudice because sufficiency issue preserved at close of evidence |
| Constitutionality of § 666(a)(2) (vagueness and limits under Necessary and Proper Clause) | Ryans: statute vague and beyond Congress’s power under Necessary and Proper | Govt: statute is not vague and is within Congress’s Spending/Necessary and Proper authority; Sabri controls | Court: Affirmed. No plain error; Sabri and precedent uphold § 666(a)(2) against these constitutional challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (equitable excusable-neglect factors govern deadline extensions)
- Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (Spending Clause/Necessary and Proper Clause upholding of § 666)
- United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir.) (elements and construction of § 666)
- United States v. Townsend, 630 F.3d 1003 (11th Cir.) (market approach and recognition that "thing of value" can be intangible)