United States v. Florence White Eagle
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13650
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Florence White Eagle was BIA Superintendent at Fort Peck and signed loan documents for the tribal Credit Program; Credit Program employees (including Toni Greybull) ran a long‑running nominee‑loan fraud diverting ~$1.2M.
- Greybull fast‑tracked loans to herself and others; after Greybull’s 2008 death, Greybull’s sister told White Eagle nominee loans existed in her and Greybull’s son’s names and asked that life insurance pay them off.
- White Eagle wrote a false BIA letter to Patricia Menz assuring her alleged loans were paid/erroneously listed; she also induced Greybull’s husband to pay off some loans with life‑insurance proceeds.
- White Eagle separately obtained and later modified her own Credit Program loan (a $15,000 increase), approved by the Credit Committee; the government argued this was a quid pro quo for her concealment assistance.
- Indicted on six counts (conspiracy; theft/conversion of tribal property; bribery; concealment/false statement §1001; conflict §208; misprision §4); jury convicted on all counts and district court sentenced; on appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed bribery and misprision, reversed the others, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counts I & II: Conspiracy and theft/ conversion of tribal property (18 U.S.C. §§371,1163) | White Eagle conspired with Greybull; object was the $15,000 loan modification and thus criminal conversion/misapplication | Loan modification was lawfully approved by Credit Committee; no fraud or false application by White Eagle; employer instruction or civil ethics rule can’t alone create criminal misapplication | Reversed: insufficient evidence—no misapplication/embezzlement; object (loan mod) not criminal; civil/regulatory violations cannot be bootstrapped into felony convictions |
| Count III: Bribery (18 U.S.C. §201(b)(2)) | Greybull provided a valuable benefit (fast favorable loan) in exchange for White Eagle’s concealment help; quid pro quo proved | White Eagle contends she received nothing of value or that any assistance could not have affected investigators; also challenges indictment timing | Affirmed: jury could infer quid pro quo and corrupt intent from false letter, timing, and favorable loan terms |
| Count IV: Concealment / false statement (18 U.S.C. §1001) | Failure to report and misleading communications to officials satisfy §1001 concealment of material fact | White Eagle argues she had no specific duty to report fraud to a particular government entity and any duty was a general ethics regulation, not a §1001 trigger | Reversed: §1001 requires a specific disclosure duty to a particular person/entity or a false affirmative statement; general ethical reporting obligations insufficient |
| Count V: Conflict of interest (18 U.S.C. §208) | Concealing fraud served White Eagle’s financial interests (continued employment and future loan eligibility), satisfying §208 | White Eagle argues interests are too speculative/remotely linked to her acts to constitute a “particular matter” affecting a financial interest | Reversed: connection between concealment and White Eagle’s financial interest was too attenuated and speculative to meet §208’s requirements |
| Count VI: Misprision of a felony (18 U.S.C. §4) | White Eagle knew of Greybull’s nominee‑loan felony, failed to notify authorities, and took affirmative steps (induced payment) to conceal it | White Eagle claims she reported to a supervisor and did not take concealment steps that impeded discovery | Affirmed: evidence supported knowledge, failure to report, and affirmative concealment (arranging life‑insurance payments reduced likelihood of detection) |
| Sentencing valuation under U.S.S.G. §2C1.1(b)(2) | Government treated $15,000 loan face value as the ‘‘value of the benefit’’ for enhancement | White Eagle argued loan face value improperly used; benefit value should be net advantage (favorable terms/interest savings), not gross loan amount | Remanded: district court erred by using loss/face‑value approach; must determine net value of benefit from bribery (not automatic §2B1.1 loss calculation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (en banc) (sufficiency review in Ninth Circuit)
- United States v. Wolf, 820 F.2d 1499 (9th Cir. 1987) (limits on converting civil regulatory violations into criminal misapplication)
- United States v. Christo, 614 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1980) (civil violations cannot be bootstrapped into misapplication felonies)
- United States v. Leyva, 282 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements for bribery conviction)
- United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (§1001 conviction reversed where only general ethics regulation duty existed)
- United States v. Ciambrone, 750 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1985) (elements of misprision of felony)
- United States v. Fitzhugh, 78 F.3d 1326 (8th Cir. 1996) (valuation of loan benefit for bribery enhancements)