United States v. Hardin
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21088
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kenneth Hardin, senior manager of RTD’s Civil Rights Division, oversaw small-business participation and reviewed contracts over $10,000.
- Lucilious Ward, owner of a certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and manufacturing rep for Build Your Dream (BYD), contracted with RTD for Access-a-Ride beginning in 2008.
- After Ward pleaded guilty to tax evasion, he became an FBI informant; recorded meetings and payments to Hardin followed.
- Ward paid Hardin multiple cash payments (including $1,000–$2,000 sums) and promised monthly payments and a large contingent payoff to secure RTD’s shuttle-bus purchase for BYD.
- Hardin provided technical specs and competitor information; meetings and calls showed they intended to secure the lucrative shuttle-bus contract.
- Indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) on four bribery counts; acquitted on one count (April 30 payment) but convicted on three counts tied to May 15, June 26, and September meetings. Post-verdict motion for acquittal (insufficient $5,000 threshold) denied; Hardin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported that the bribes related to a business/transaction of $5,000+ under § 666 | Gov't: Evidence showed bribes aimed at securing the shuttle-bus purchase, a transaction worth well over $5,000 | Hardin: The bribes related only to the RFP or to informational advantages, not a contract; no evidence RFP or informational benefit met $5,000 threshold | Court: Sufficient evidence to find the subject was the shuttle-bus purchase (valued > $5,000); affirmed conviction |
| Proper valuation method for § 666’s $5,000 element | Gov't: Value may be shown by value of the underlying contract, the bribe amount, or benefit to bribe-giver | Hardin: Court must treat the RFP or narrow informational benefit as the subject and those lacked $5,000 value | Court: Multiple valuation approaches exist; affirm if any supports verdict — here contract value and contextual evidence suffice |
| Whether acquittal on one count undermines sufficiency for other counts | Gov't: Acquittal on unrelated count does not negate evidence tying other payments to the larger contract | Hardin: Acquittal shows jury found some payments unrelated to the contract, so remaining convictions lack required $5,000 nexus | Court: The jury could rationally distinguish counts; remaining convictions stand based on other payments and communications |
| Vagueness challenge to § 666 as applied | Gov't: Statute gives fair notice; ordinary meaning of "business" suffices | Hardin: If subject is RFP/information, statutory terms are vague as applied | Court: Statute sufficiently definite; no void-for-vagueness problem given reasonable meanings and jury findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wells, 843 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Pickel, 863 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2017) (deferential review of evidence)
- United States v. Johnson, 821 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2016) (sufficiency inquiry focuses on whether evidence, credited as true, establishes elements)
- United States v. Ramos-Arenas, 596 F.3d 783 (10th Cir. 2010) (reversal only if no rational trier could convict)
- United States v. Buenrostro, 781 F.3d 864 (7th Cir. 2015) (the $5,000 element relates to the subject matter of the bribe)
- United States v. Robinson, 663 F.3d 265 (7th Cir. 2011) (bribe amount can provide a floor for valuation)
- United States v. Owens, 697 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2012) (bribe amount may serve as proxy for transaction value)
- United States v. Fernandez, 722 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (valuation may look to bribe amount)
- United States v. Hines, 541 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2008) (value can be measured by benefit to third parties with immediate interest)
- United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094 (10th Cir. 2002) (rejecting void-for-vagueness challenge where ordinary meaning supplies adequate notice)