United States v. Ashley Andrews
681 F.3d 509
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Andrews was convicted on counts including conspiracy, four counts of wire fraud, one count of program fraud, one count of fraudulent claims upon the Government of the Virgin Islands, and one count of inducing a conflict of interest.
- The scheme centered on GRM bidding for a Virgin Islands sewer-system contract, with Harris leveraging his official role to promote Andrews and GRM.
- GRM forged bond applications with numerous false representations to obtain performance and payment bonds for the contract.
- The contract was ultimately terminated before any work proceeded, but the government pursued charges related to the bid process and related acts.
- The district court sentenced Andrews to a general term, later vacated on Counts One through Six, leading to a remand for resentencing; Andrews challenged jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Skilling honest-services error requires reversal. | Andrews argues plain error from honest-services references. | Government contends any error was cured by narrowing instructions. | Harmless plain error; no reversal on Counts 2–5. |
| Sufficiency of wire fraud evidence for Counts 2–5. | Evidence insufficient to prove scheme to defraud. | Evidence supports tangible-rights wire fraud. | Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of program fraud guidance (Count Six). | Harris lacked authority to influence the contract. | Harris could influence via agency; intent shown. | Sufficient evidence of bribery-intent under § 666(a)(2). |
| Inducing a conflict of interest (Count Eight). | Andrews induced Harris to act with GRM influence. | Harris’s future gain suffices for substantial-conflict. | Sufficient evidence of substantial-conflict interest. |
| Jury instruction on Count Seven (fraudulent claims). | Jury must find content of claim false. | Instruction already covered fraudulent intent; no error. | No error; proper instructions given. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (honest-services narrowed to bribes or kickbacks)
- United States v. Riley, 621 F.3d 312 (2010) (plain-error review of Skilling in the Third Circuit)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for forfeited errors)
- United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159 (2010) (plain-error framework; three-prong test)
- United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560 (2012) (harmlessness depends on overwhelming alternative theory)
- United States v. Hornsby, 666 F.3d 296 (2012) (interwoven honest-services theory not harmless where strong alternative)