United States v. Benita Dinkins-Robinson
679 F. App'x 291
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Benita Dinkins-Robinson was executive director of a charter school (2007–2012) that received ≈$5.27 million from state and federal sources; about $1.76 million (≈1/3) was federal (USDA and DOE).
- The school commingled state and federal monies in a single bank account. USDA funds reimbursed nutrition-program expenses; DOE funds reimbursed Title I/II and IDEA-related expenses.
- Dinkins-Robinson allegedly set up shell companies, funneled school funds to them for sham services, then used those corporate accounts to pay personal expenses and fund five annuities; total alleged embezzlement ≈ $1.56 million.
- FBI investigation followed suspicious deposits at Allianz; a jury convicted Dinkins-Robinson on two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 641 (embezzlement of USDA and DOE funds), and ordered forfeiture and restitution.
- On appeal she challenged: (1) sufficiency of evidence that the funds were federal property and exceeded $1,000, (2) district court’s loss calculation for sentencing, and (3) restitution allocation to USDA and DOE.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether funds taken were “property of the United States” under § 641 | Govt: USDA/DOE retained supervision/control over funds; evidence showed federal strings, audits, approvals | Dinkins-Robinson: once disbursed and commingled, funds were no longer federal property | Court: Affirmed—testimony and program controls supported inference federal supervision/control; funds remained federal property |
| Whether > $1,000 of embezzled funds were federal when account was commingled | Govt: federal funds comprised ~1/3 of account; from $1.56M embezzled, jury can infer >$1,000 federal portion | Dinkins-Robinson: commingling prevents identification of federal dollars, so cannot prove >$1,000 | Court: Affirmed—commingling does not defeat conviction; given proportions and amounts a rational jury could infer >$1,000 was federal |
| Whether district court miscalculated amount of loss for Guidelines | Govt: court may use relevant conduct to calculate total loss ($1.56M) | Dinkins-Robinson: court erred by treating entire embezzled sum as loss absent proof federal source for all funds | Court: Affirmed—court reasonably estimated total loss as relevant conduct; no clear error |
| Whether restitution order (paying USDA/DOE full amounts) was improper | Govt: MVRA permits restitution based on victims’ losses; court apportioned restitution to agencies | Dinkins-Robinson: government didn’t prove agencies’ actual federal loss; restitution overbroad | Court: Affirmed—review for plain error failed; no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gill, 193 F.3d 802 (4th Cir. 1999) (federal supervision/control test for § 641)
- United States v. Littriello, 866 F.2d 713 (4th Cir. 1989) (factors showing continued federal control over funds)
- United States v. Hall, 549 F.3d 1033 (6th Cir. 2008) (federal reimbursement funds may remain federal property)
- United States v. Von Stephens, 774 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1985) (commingling does not necessarily defeat federal character)
- United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018 (4th Cir. 1982) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard on Rule 29)
- United States v. Cloud, 680 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2012) (clear-error review of loss calculation)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (plain-error standard for unpreserved objections)
- United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error analysis for guideline calculation)