United States v. Geoffrey Comstock, 974 F.3d 551

Background:

Geoffrey Comstock owned Frio Nevado, the City of San Antonio’s janitorial contractor for the Alamodome; Frio was paid management fees monthly and hourly for janitorial work.
Frio routinely billed the City for the full hours in pre-event work orders despite having staff work fewer hours; Comstock instructed managers to reduce actual hours and not change invoices.
When the City audited Frio’s 2014 contract and requested time sheets, Comstock directed employees to fabricate time records and spreadsheets to match billed hours; recorded conversations captured employees describing the practice as fraud.
A Frio employee (Hughes) reported the scheme to federal authorities and provided audio recordings; the City’s uAttend records later showed a multi-hundred-thousand-dollar overbilling.
The Government charged Comstock with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and six counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud; a jury convicted him on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to 25 months and ordered $358,464.11 in restitution (after the City’s loss estimate was revised downward).

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for wire fraud, conspiracy, and aiding/abetting	Evidence (testimony, invoices, wire transfers, recordings) proves scheme, use of wires, and intent to defraud	Comstock claimed an unwritten agreement or good-faith belief authorizing budget-based billing	Convictions affirmed; evidence was sufficient and recordings/testimony rebutted unwritten-agreement defense
Jury instruction: good-faith as complete defense	Jury was properly instructed on intent elements; no additional instruction required	Requested a five‑paragraph good‑faith instruction asserting absence of criminal intent	No abuse of discretion; court’s instructions adequately covered intent/good-faith defense
Jury instruction: defensive-theory (Mathews) instruction	Defendant entitled to instruction if evidence supports a recognized defense	Submitted a blank, fill‑in instruction and did not identify applicable state-law provisions or proposed text	Refusal not an abuse; defendant failed to supply a concrete theory or language to warrant the instruction
Loss calculation for Guidelines and restitution	City’s conservative loss estimate (adjusted down twice) is a reasonable preponderance-based estimate supporting Guidelines and restitution	Comstock disputed hours, billing basis, and hourly rate used; argued alternative records favored lower loss	Loss and restitution affirmed; district court’s triply conservative estimate was not clearly erroneous and restitution appropriately tied to actual loss

Key Cases Cited

del Carpio Frescas, 932 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard for sufficiency review)
Spalding, 894 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2018) (elements of wire fraud)
Beachum, 774 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2014) (elements of conspiracy to commit fraud)
Davis, 132 F.3d 1092 (5th Cir. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury instructions)
Kay, 513 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2007) (district courts’ latitude on jury instructions)
Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (defendant entitled to instruction on recognized defenses supported by evidence)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (review standard for Guidelines factual findings)
Mazkouri, 945 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2019) (loss estimation and restitution principles)
De Nieto, 922 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2019) (deference to sentencing court’s loss estimate)
Hebron, 684 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2012) (district court’s discretion in estimating loss)
Sharma, 703 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for restitution awards)