United States v. DiDonna
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14183
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- James DiDonna worked as an independent sales rep for Archer Angus (the Bucks) on commission; relationship terminated July 2012 and commissions disputed.
- Bucks escrowed $16,713.06 (pre-termination commissions) with their attorney; DiDonna later demanded that plus additional money he described as a "settlement."
- DiDonna threatened to "expose" alleged misrepresentations about Archer Angus beef and to ruin the business if not paid; multiple recorded calls and emails show demands and deadlines.
- Parties negotiated a $40,000 cash "business development settlement," agreed to a delivery date; FBI substituted an undercover agent and arranged a rest-stop exchange on Oct. 3, 2013.
- A federal jury convicted DiDonna of attempted Hobbs Act extortion (18 U.S.C. §1951(a)) and attempting to collect an extension of credit by extortionate means (18 U.S.C. §894(a)); appeal challenges sufficiency of evidence for both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports Hobbs Act extortion (threats of economic harm to obtain money) | DiDonna threatened to "expose" Buck and demanded payment as hush money — no claim of right to the $40,000 | DiDonna claimed he sought legitimately owed post-termination commissions; threats were hard bargaining | Affirmed: sufficient evidence for Hobbs Act extortion; jury could find he knew he had no claim of right |
| Whether evidence shows an "extension of credit" under §894(a) | The agreed delay between demand and payment (settlement delivery date) constituted a tacit agreement to defer repayment, i.e., extension of credit | The parties simply scheduled a time/place for cash payment; no assent to defer debt — mere delay for logistics is not credit | Reversed: insufficient evidence that defendant manifested assent to defer payment; no extension of credit |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cruz-Arroyo, 461 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2006) (fear under Hobbs Act includes economic loss)
- United States v. Sturm, 870 F.2d 769 (1st Cir. 1989) (defendant must know he lacked legal entitlement to property to negate claim of right)
- United States v. Dzhanikyan, 808 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2015) (mere demand for payment does not itself establish an "extension of credit")
- United States v. Hoyle, 237 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (key to extension of credit is creditor's assent to defer payment)
- United States v. Wallace, 59 F.3d 333 (2d Cir. 1995) (delay tolerated by creditor without assent is not an extension of credit)
- United States v. Boulahanis, 677 F.2d 586 (7th Cir. 1982) (§894 targets collection of credit previously extended, not all extortionate collections)
- United States v. O'Brien, 14 F.3d 703 (1st Cir. 1994) (standards for sufficiency review and jury inferences)