527 F. App'x 191
3d Cir.2013Background
- Munchak and Cordaro were Lackawanna County commissioners who controlled bidding on county contracts.
- They were charged with conspiracy to commit bribery, bribery, conspiracy to commit extortion under color of right, extortion under color of right, filing false tax returns, and income tax evasion; Cordaro had additional conspiracies related to money laundering, racketeering, and defrauding the United States.
- Both were convicted after a ten-day trial in June 2011.
- Munchak was sentenced to 84 months in prison, 3 years supervised release, and a $5,000 fine; Cordaro received 132 months, 3 years supervised release, $98,856 restitution, and $355,000 forfeiture.
- The district court ordered restitution under Count 33 for conspiracy to defraud the United States related to income taxes; appellate review was sought on several issues, including restitution and sentencing enhancements.
- Cordaro’s appeal included challenges to indictment sufficiency, cross-examination, evidentiary rulings, and restitution amount; the court affirmed convictions and certain enhancements while remanding for restitution calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hobbs Act: proper instruction on status as public official | Munchak: instruction allowed conviction for extortion by status, not quid pro quo | Munchak: explicit quid pro quo required | Plain error not found; instructions read as a whole conveyed quid pro quo requirement |
| Bribery under § 666 lacking quid pro quo | Munchak: jury could convict on gratuity theory | No reversible error shown; evidence supported bribery theory | No substantial effect on rights; no reversal on this count |
| Obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement | Enhancement misapplied as strict liability for speaking to witnesses | Court did not abuse discretion; conduct supported enhancement | Court did not abuse discretion; enhancement upheld |
| Indictment adequacy for conspiracy counts (Counts 13, 19, 25) | SSI sufficiently alleged agreement and intent; some counts lacked extra elements | Indictment insufficient elements | Indictment counts sufficient under liberal construction standard |
| Restitution: proper scope and amount for Count 33 | Restitution allowed for Title 18 conspiracy to defraud; amount tied to taxes | Restitution improper for non-conspirators and outside loss; potential overreach | Remanded for proper restitution determination; district court to reassess |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1992) (extortion under color of official right requires payment in exchange for official acts)
- United States v. Dobson, 419 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2005) (plain-error standard for unobjected jury instructions)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review; substantial rights at stake)
- United States v. Coyle, 63 F.3d 1239 (3d Cir. 1995) (read instructions as a whole; quid pro quo requirement)
- United States v. Werme, 939 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1991) (conspiracy indictment elements need not mirror underlying offense)
- United States v. Wander, 601 F.2d 1251 (3d Cir. 1979) (conspiracy count elements; overt acts required where applicable)
- United States v. Root, 585 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2009) (elements of conspiracy to defraud United States)
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1990) (restitution framework; loss-based limits)
- United States v. Nolen, 472 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2006) (restitution for tax offenses context; caution on scope)
- United States v. Minneman, 143 F.3d 274 (7th Cir. 1998) (restitution for tax conspiracy offenses under Title 18)
- United States v. Helmsley, 941 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1991) (restitution for tax-related conspiracy)
- United States v. Bradley, 173 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 1999) (quid pro quo requirement in Hobbs Act context)
- Hill v. Reederei F. Laeisz G.M.B.H., Rostock, 435 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2006) (harmless error in evidentiary rulings)