United States v. FATTAH
2:15-cr-00346
| E.D. Pa. | Sep 18, 2019Background:
- Vederman, a businessman associated with Rep. Chaka Fattah, was charged in a multi-count political-corruption indictment and convicted after trial on eight counts; the district court granted Rule 29 acquittals on several counts but the Third Circuit later modified those rulings.
- The Third Circuit (United States v. Fattah) reversed convictions on bribery and money-laundering-related counts in light of McDonnell but found sufficient evidence to retry those counts and reinstated convictions on Counts 19 (bank fraud) and 20 (false statements to a financial institution).
- The district court scheduled a retrial on Counts 16, 18, 22, 23 and postponed sentencing on Counts 19–20; parties later filed a joint stipulation and agreed to recommend 12 months plus one day for Counts 19–20, with dismissal of remaining counts.
- At sentencing the court rejected the parties’ recommendation and imposed concurrent two-year terms on Counts 19 and 20 (plus fines and supervised release); the government then moved to dismiss the retrialable counts and Vederman appealed and moved for release pending appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).
- The district court found Vederman proved he was not likely to flee or be dangerous but denied release because the appeal did not raise a substantial question likely to result in reversal or a new trial and the appeal appeared aimed at delay.
Issues:
| Issue | Government's Argument | Vederman's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant is likely to flee or pose a danger if released | Defendant not a flight/danger risk was proven; release should nonetheless be denied on other grounds | Seeks release pending appeal; asserts no flight/danger risk | Court: Vederman proved by clear and convincing evidence no flight/danger risk (release prong satisfied) |
| Whether appeal raises a "substantial question" under § 3143(b) | Appeal does not raise a substantial, debatable legal question as to Counts 19–20; Third Circuit already upheld sufficiency | Argues convictions on Counts 19–20 were tainted by erroneous jury instructions on bribery and money-laundering counts (McDonnell spillover) | Court: No substantial question; Third Circuit rejected spillover and found sufficient evidence; convictions on Counts 19–20 stand |
| Whether a favorable decision on appeal is likely to result in reversal or new trial | No — even favorable rulings on other counts would not require reversal of Counts 19–20 | Contends reversal or retrial of related counts could affect Counts 19–20 | Court: Unlikely; Third Circuit directed sentencing on Counts 19–20 and rejected spillover; requirement not met |
| Whether the appeal is for purpose of delay | The appeal appears aimed at delaying surrender given controlling Third Circuit rulings and frivolous sentencing-argument basis | Argues challenge to sentence severity and trial issues justify release pending appeal | Court: Appeal is for delay; Vederman failed to show appeal is not for delay |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) (Supreme Court decision narrowing the scope of official-act bribery law)
- United States v. Fattah, 914 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2019) (Third Circuit reinstated convictions on Counts 19–20, reversed others, and rejected prejudicial spillover)
- United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 19 (3d Cir. 1985) (presumption against release pending appeal and § 3143(b) standard)
- United States v. Smith, 793 F.2d 85 (3d Cir. 1986) (explanation of the "substantial question" test)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) (standard that a question is "debatable among jurists of reason")
- United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussion of what constitutes a substantial, nonfrivolous question)