United States v. Douglas
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2489
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Douglas and Campbell, UAW representatives at GM Pontiac, pressured for high-paying journeyman jobs for two unqualified relatives, despite hiring priorities.
- GM refused; an eighty-seven day strike ended after the union conceded on all issues except the two relatives' jobs.
- Two qualified applicants later were hired in addition to the two relatives following the strike resolution.
- The United States charged them under the Labor Management Relations Act and Hobbs Act for demanding things of value and misusing labor positions.
- The district court dismissed, then the Sixth Circuit reversed, and the case proceeded to trial resulting in convictions; the United States cross-appealed sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actions violated the LMRA 186(b)(1). | Government argues 'thing of value' includes jobs; third-party beneficiaries allowed. | Douglas/Campbell contend no personal receipt and narrow reading of 'thing of value'. | Convictions upheld; statute covers things of value and third-party beneficiaries. |
| Whether the Hobbs Act requires a 'wrongful' purpose beyond a labor violation. | Government says actions outside bargaining context are wrongful extortion. | Defendants argue labor dispute negates 'wrongful' purpose. | Actions meet 'wrongful' standard; within Hobbs Act extortion. |
| Whether Brady violation warranted new trial. | Government failed to disclose Hawkins's conviction; may be material. | Defendants claim prejudice from suppressed evidence. | No Brady prejudice; new trial not warranted. |
| Whether district court erred by using 2B3.3 (Blackmail) instead of 2B3.2 (Extortion). | Government contends 2B3.2 better fits threat to GM and labor disruption. | Douglas/Campbell maintain 2B3.3 correct for 'things of value'. | Remanded to apply 2B3.2 on remand; 2B3.3 was improper. |
| How to calculate loss and consequential damages under 2B3.2 on remand. | Consequence damages and loss to GM should reflect actual harm from hiring action. | GM allegedly suffered loss offset by provided services; negligible direct loss. | Remand to calculate consequential damages under 2B3.2; apply appropriate enhancements. |
| Whether Douglas's sentence was procedurally reasonable given misapplied guidelines. | Disparity with Campbell could justify variance. | Reduction based on disparity improperly used as offense-level reduction. | Remand for resentencing; procedural error due to incorrect guideline application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1973) (wrongful purpose outside legitimate bargaining suffices for Hobbs Act)
- Budd, 496 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2007) (jury instructions cannot constructively amend indictment; standard for review)
- DeBrouse, 652 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1981) (third-party beneficiary theory valid under LMRA)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1993) (Guideline commentary is authoritative unless unconstitutional)
- Lay, 583 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2009) (commentary is authoritative post-Booker)
- Cusmano, unreported in text (—) (reference for Hobbs Act wrongful necessity of mandate)