United States v. Fernando Benner, 442 F. App'x 417

Benner was indicted for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) and bribery of a bank official (18 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1)).
At trial, he arranged a bribe through Bank of America employee Diaz to unfreeze two accounts; Parra assisted and delivered $2,000.
Santin, a coworker, secretly helped reveal the FBI’s involvement; Cruz cooperated with the FBI in a related case.
Benner admitted telling Parra to deliver $2,000 and that Diaz would receive a percentage of the proceeds.
The jury convicted on both counts; Benner was sentenced to 63 months’ imprisonment in total.
On appeal, Benner challenges vagueness, multiplicity, defense-rights, and multiple sentencing enhancements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vagueness of § 215(a)(1) challenged?	Benner argues no notice for prohibited bank-officer offers.	Benner asserts broad § 215(a)(1) with improper notice.	Statute not vague; scienter mitigates notice concerns.
Conspiracy and bribery as multiplicitous?	Counts join conspiracy and bribery as separate offenses.	Multiplicity violates Double Jeopardy.	No multiplicity; each count requires different facts under Blockburger.
Exclusion of Santin testimony violated right to present defense?	Santin testimony would show Benner’s state of mind.	Exclusion violated defense rights under Eisenstein/constitutes plain error.	No plain error; testimony cumulative and not outcome-determinative.
Sentencing enhancements—amount used for § 2B4.1 and obstruction?	Value of improper benefit to be conferred is the bribe’s value.	Only the bribe amount matters; challenge to enhancements.	Upheld: $681,502 value for 2B4.1; § 3C1.1 obstruction upheld.

United States v. Awan, 966 F.2d 1415 (11th Cir. 1992) (fugitive vagueness; scienter mitigates notice)
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (scienter and notice in vagueness analysis)
United States v. Or. & C. R. Co., 164 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1896) (title not controlling when body is clear)
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1998) (rule of lenity requires ambiguity)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (each offense requires proof of an additional fact)
United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2003) (distinct elements for aiding and abetting)
United States v. Eisenstein, 731 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir. 1984) (admissibility of defense-counsel testimony; reliance defense)
United States v. Thomas, 62 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1995) (cumulative or irrelevant testimony exclusion proper)
United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1982) (cumulative evidence doctrine in witness exclusion)
United States v. Williams, 144 F.3d 1397 (11th Cir. 1998) (evidence sufficiency for bribe amount)
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1993) (perjury and obstruction standards)
Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (defendant’s right to testify not extended to false testimony)
Forrest v. United States, 623 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1980) (two-witness rule in falsity proof)