United States v. James S. Doran
854 F.3d 1312
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dr. James Doran, an FSU business professor and officer/director of the Student Investment Fund (SIF), was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 666 for embezzling funds described in the indictment as property of Florida State University (FSU).
- The SIF was a separate nonprofit corporation (a university direct-support organization) with its own bank account, tax filings, audits, and articles disclaiming FSU liability; it received only private donations and no federal funds.
- Doran twice transferred large sums (e.g., $300,000 in 2010 and $350,000 in 2011) from the SIF to his personal account and repaid them after discovery; he also wrote a $10,000 SIF check for a personal audit and later repaid it.
- The indictment alleged embezzlement of FSU property and alleged FSU was a recipient of federal benefits; the government conceded the SIF received no federal funds.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed denial of acquittal de novo and analyzed whether the relevant victim organization under § 666 was the SIF or FSU and whether the government proved receipt of qualifying federal benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity of the "relevant organization" under § 666 | Gov't: Doran was an agent of FSU; FSU’s federal funding satisfies § 666 even though SIF was the immediate victim | Doran: The SIF was the victim and independent; SIF received no federal benefits so § 666 does not apply | Court: The relevant organization is the entity victimized (SIF); government failed to show SIF received federal benefits, so § 666 not satisfied |
| Agency/care, custody, or control element | Gov't: Doran, as FSU professor, acted as an FSU agent and SIF funds were under FSU's care/control due to affiliation | Doran: He acted as SIF officer/director and embezzled SIF funds; FSU agency irrelevant | Court: Even if Doran was an FSU agent, the property was SIF's; agency to FSU does not rescue § 666 liability absent victim-organization receiving federal benefits |
| Whether affiliation permits treating SIF and FSU as one (piercing corporate veil) | Gov't: Close affiliation and overlapping governance justify treating SIF and FSU as the same for § 666 purposes | Doran: SIF is legally separate; articles and operations show independence | Court: No evidence SIF and FSU are alter egos; veil-piercing not warranted |
| Sufficiency of federal-benefits proof | Gov't (alternate in concurrence): If FSU is treated as the relevant org, government presented evidence of federal disbursements to FSU | Doran: Evidence of federal funding was generalized and insufficient under Edgar/Fischer/McLean standards | Court: Majority—no federal benefits to SIF so conviction fails; Concurrence—if FSU were relevant, evidence was still insufficient to prove qualifying federal benefits to FSU |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischer v. United States, 529 U.S. 667 (2000) (interpreting the term “benefits” in § 666(b) and cautioning against overbroad application)
- United States v. Edgar, 304 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2002) (requires federal programs to have sufficiently comprehensive structure, operation, and purpose to constitute § 666(b) benefits)
- United States v. McLean, 802 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2015) (applies Edgar to require a relationship between federal program structure and local use; identified relevant local organization as the one tied to the misconduct)
- Molinos Valle Del Cibao v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2011) (corporate veil-piercing standards; separate entities treated distinctly)
- United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of de novo review for denial of judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Pineiro, 389 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)