United States v. Jibreel Rashad
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14077
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rashad was convicted in a severed trial of conspiracy to commit extortion under the Hobbs Act in a scheme involving Dallas officials and a developer (Fisher).
- The indictment charged Rashad and others, including Robertson, Lee, Hill, and Hodge, with conspiring to extort from Fisher to influence zoning and contracts for low-income housing in South Dallas.
- Hill and Lee allegedly used their official positions to pressure Fisher, including delaying votes and demanding payments via a purported consultant arrangement with BSEAT and RA-MILL.
- Fisher recorded meetings with Rashad, Robertson, Lee, and Hill; Rashad and Robertson admitted Lee’s secret partnership in RA-MILL and that payments would ‘get taken care of’ through the contract.
- Fisher ultimately paid sums in the extortion scheme; the FBI executed multiple search warrants, and several co-defendants were convicted on related charges.
- Rashad received a 57-month sentence, with 12 months concurrent with a prior mortgage-fraud sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Hobbs Act conspiracy | Rashad conspired with public officials to extort through RA-MILL and used fear of economic loss | No actual money or harm to Fisher; insufficient evidence of conspiracy and fear | Sufficient evidence supported conspiracy under fear of economic harm and color-of-official-right theories |
| Color of official right for private conspirators | Rashad acted in concert with officials and benefited from their votes, satisfying color of official right | As a private citizen, Rashad cannot allege extortion under color of official right | Conspiracy established; private individuals can conspire with corrupt officials under color-of-official-right theory |
| Prosecutor's closing arguments | Any improper comments did not prejudice substantial rights given abundant evidence | Closing remarks misstated defendant and violated standards against vouching/character attacks | No reversible plain error; remarks were not prejudicial in light of evidence |
| Reasonableness of sentence under Booker/Gall | Sentence within advisory range and at the bottom of range given undischarged term and 3553(a) factors | Sentence was unreasonable and should be remanded for re-sentencing | Sentence reasonable; no plain error; affirmed at bottom of advisory range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2002) (fear of economic loss can support extortion under Hobbs Act)
- United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369 (5th Cir. 1995) (extortion under color of official right; private individuals with officials)
- United States v. Rubio, 321 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2003) (private individual conspired with public official for extortion)
- United States v. Box, 50 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 1995) (bail bondsman guilty of Hobbs Act conspiracy under color of official right)
- United States v. Gracia, 522 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard for prosecutorial missteps in closing)
- United States v. Thompson, 482 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2007) (factors for assessing prejudicial impact of closing remarks)
- United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review for sentencing)
- United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness of sentences post-Booker; presumptive reasonableness within range)
- United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (reasonableness review after Booker)