United States v. Jeffrey Wayne Aunspaugh
792 F.3d 1302
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Husband and wife Aunspaughs and Hale were charged in a four-count superseding indictment over a scheme involving rehabilitation work for Glades Electric Cooperative (GEC) and its subsidiary GUS.
- Ener-Phase Electric, owned by the Aunspaughs, performed work via undisclosed payments to Hale who steered contracts to Ener-Phase.
- Hurricane Wilma prompted FEMA-funded pole straightening; Ener-Phase replacement of a local firm led to large undisclosed payments to Hale, and payments to Hale totaled over $200,000.
- GUS policy allowed moonlighting with disclosure; Hale did not disclose his Ener-Phase relationship and steered work to Ener-Phase without authorization.
- The government framed the payments as kickbacks; the defense claimed payments were legitimate compensation for Hale’s work.
- The district court gave a Skilling-based honest-services instruction, which the defendants contended was improper; the verdicts on honest-services and related counts were eventually vacated on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether honest-services fraud extended to self-dealing without a kickback | Aunspaughs argue self-dealing is within honest services under Skilling. | Hale and Aunspaughs contend only kickbacks qualify as honest-services fraud. | Honest-services requires kickbacks; self-dealing alone not sufficient. |
| whether jury instructions properly limited conviction to kickbacks | Evidence supported kickbacks; instruction allowed conviction on either view. | Instruction inadequately restricted to kickbacks, enabling conviction for self-dealing. | Instructions violated Skilling; convictions vacated. |
| whether money laundering and structuring convictions rely on the honest-services theory | Money laundering rests on proceeds from honest-services fraud. | If honest-services convictions are invalidated, related money-laundering/structuring convictions collapse. | Money-laundering and related counts vacated. |
| whether structuring warranting enhanced penalty under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(d)(2) was proven | Interlinked with honest-services, justifies enhanced penalty if proven. | Removal of honest-services verdicts voids enhancement | Enhanced-penalty finding vacated; remand to reassess without honest-services conviction. |
| whether count three (conspiracy to structure) remains valid after vacating related counts | Count three stands independently of honest-services and money laundering. | Counts rely on the same theory; may be affected by vacatur. | Count three conviction remains valid; sentence on count three vacated only for remand purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (Supreme Court 2010) (limits honest-services to bribes/kickbacks; rejects undisclosed self-dealing expansion)
- McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (Supreme Court 1987) (honest-services fraud not recognized for general fiduciary duty breach)
- United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011) (followed Skilling on honest-services scope)
- United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003) (kickbacks may be unlawful even without demonstrable harm)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court 2000) (jury must decide any fact increasing maximum penalty)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (Supreme Court 1994) (structuring elements without requiring violation of another law)
- United States v. Lang, 732 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2013) (structuring elements; clarifies no requirement of violation of another law for structuring)