United States v. Bartlett
1:23-cr-20676
| E.D. Mich. | Jun 9, 2025Background
- Defendants (Jeffrey Bartlett, Brian Bartlett, Anthony Thelen, Adam Ball, and Andrew Semenchuk) are charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and multiple counts of wire fraud, concerning actions taken between 2011-2019.
- Allegations center on use of Surveying Solutions Inc. (SSI) and affiliated shell companies in a scheme to fraudulently certify SSI as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) for increased federal contracting opportunities with MDOT.
- Scheme included false DBE certifications, overbilling MDOT for rental and labor expenses through commonly controlled entities, and distributing excessive payments to defendants and their spouses.
- Defendants filed four central pretrial motions: (1) to strike DBE allegations as irrelevant, (2) to dismiss multiplicitous conspiracy counts, (3) to dismiss based on the rule of lenity due to regulatory ambiguity, and (4) to dismiss a count as time-barred.
- The court resolved all four motions: it denied three (striking DBE allegations, dismissing conspiracy counts, and applying rule of lenity) but granted dismissal of one wire fraud count as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strike DBE allegations as surplusage | DBE allegations are material to showing fraud and intent relevant to all counts | DBE allegations are irrelevant, prejudicial, and based on an invalid legal theory | Denied—DBE allegations are relevant and material |
| Multiplicitous conspiracy counts (Double Jeopardy) | Counts I & II involve separate statutes with different elements | Both counts relate to same basic conspiracy, violating double jeopardy | Denied—Counts require distinct elements |
| Rule of Lenity - "Common Control" ambiguity | Regulation doesn’t impose criminal sanctions; lenity doesn't apply | "Common control" undefined; regulation ambiguous, so charges invalid | Denied—Rule of lenity inapplicable here |
| Time-barred (Statute of Limitations) | Concedes one wire fraud count is untimely based on records | At least one count falls outside 5-year statute; should be dismissed | Granted—Count IV dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (Supreme Court’s same-elements test for double jeopardy in multiple prosecutions)
- McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (Limited mail/wire fraud statute to schemes involving money or property, not intangible rights)
- Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (Confidential business info as property for wire fraud purposes)
- Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (Wire fraud not covering state regulatory interests)
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (Simultaneous conspiracy charges under different statutes do not violate double jeopardy)
- United States v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (Sixth Circuit endorses Blockburger test for charges under different statutes)
- United States v. Moss, 9 F.3d 543 (Indictment language not surplusage if government can properly prove it at trial)