United States v. George, Jr., 841 F.3d 55

John George Jr., former state representative, owned Trans-Ag Management, which nominally owned Union Street Bus Company (USBC), the contractor operating the SRTA bus system funded in part by federal grants.
From 2006–2010 USBC was reimbursed by SRTA for operating losses and paid management fees; George was USBC general manager and used SRTA preapproved funding and resources.
Evidence at trial showed George diverted SRTA-reimbursed funds and resources for personal use: paying employees who worked at his farm while on USBC payroll, using SRTA vehicles and equipment for farm/home, and a $10,000 payment to a contractor that circumstantially linked to his home renovation.
A jury convicted George of conspiracy and violating 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A); the district court sentenced him to concurrent terms (60 and 70 months) and ordered $688,772 restitution; while appeal was pending the court entered a forfeiture order for $1,382,214.
On appeal the First Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence, rejected multiple challenges to sufficiency, instructions, and sentencing enhancements (including a position-of-trust enhancement), but vacated the forfeiture order for lack of district court jurisdiction because the original notice of appeal divested the court of authority to enter a new forfeiture judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence under §666	Government: circumstantial and testimonial evidence proved embezzlement, bogus salaries, misuse of resources, and $5,000+ loss.	George: salaries could be bona fide; absence from workplace doesn't prove work not performed; some expenditures not proved.	Affirmed: jury reasonably found salaries/kitchen payment not bona fide and statutory threshold met.
Constructive amendment of indictment	Government: indicted for misuse of SRTA funds as charged.	George: proof at trial shifted to means not in indictment.	Rejected: charges at trial matched indictment; shifting emphasis among charged means is permissible.
Jury mens rea instructions	Government: instructions on "knowingly" and "intentionally" plus definitions of stealing/embezzling/obtaining by fraud were adequate.	George: court failed to instruct willfulness (criminal evil intent) for unmodified terms.	Rejected: instructions adequately conveyed criminal intent; no magic words required.
Forfeiture entered after notice of appeal	Government: order is part of judgment and reviewable; alternatively jurisdiction retained under Rule 32.2(e).	George: district court lacked jurisdiction to enter forfeiture while appeal pending; no new notice filed.	Held for George: district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter amended forfeiture judgment while appeal pending; forfeiture vacated and remanded for future consideration once jurisdiction reattaches.

United States v. Maldonado-Garcia, 446 F.3d 227 (1st Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing facts in light most favorable to verdict)
United States v. Cornier-Ortiz, 361 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2004) (bona fide salary ordinarily a jury question)
United States v. Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2009) (wages must be actually earned to qualify as bona fide salary)
United States v. Ransom, 642 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2011) (circumstantial evidence can support §666 convictions)
United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184 (6th Cir. 1992) (employee absenteeism relevant to finding of misapplied public funds)
United States v. Ferrario-Pozzi, 368 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2004) (distinguishing amendment of existing forfeiture in original judgment from adding forfeiture while appeal pending)
United States v. Pease, 331 F.3d 809 (11th Cir. 2003) (district court lacked jurisdiction to enter forfeiture after notice of appeal)
United States v. Nathan, 188 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 1999) (position-of-trust where contractor had control and government lacked oversight)