United States v. John Brady
694 F. App'x 184
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant John Howard Brady was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit bribery and two counts of bribery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 666(a)(2), (b).
- Indictment alleged the local government entity received in excess of $10,000 annually under a federal program (grants, contracts, subsidies, loans, guarantees, insurance, or other federal assistance).
- Brady argued § 666 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied: challenging the Spending Clause/Necessary and Proper authority, lack of alleged nexus to federal funds, and Tenth Amendment limits.
- Brady also challenged the district court’s sentencing loss calculation: a 14-level enhancement for loss > $550,000 based on extrapolating videotaped incidents to the full duration of conduct.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed statutory constitutionality de novo and loss amount for clear error, and affirmed both the convictions and the 36-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 666 under Spending/Necessary & Proper Clauses | § 666 requires proof of a nexus between bribery and federal funds; without that alleged nexus the statute exceeds Congress’s spending power | Government: Sabri forecloses a nexus-as-element requirement; Congress may regulate bribery of recipients of federal benefits through § 666 | Court: Rejected Brady’s as-applied Spending Clause challenge; Sabri controls and § 666 need not allege a nexus element |
| Sufficiency of indictment to identify federal “benefits” under § 666(b) | Indictment insufficiently alleged that funds qualify as federal “benefits” | Indictment’s language alleging > $10,000 annually under a federal program sufficiently identifies federal benefits | Court: Indictment adequate to show funds were federal benefits |
| Tenth Amendment challenge | Application of § 666 to local bribery intrudes on state sovereignty and exceeds federal power | Federal interest in preventing misuse of federal funds supports concurrent federal regulation; threshold of federal dollars preserves federal interest | Court: Tenth Amendment challenge rejected; concurrent federal regulation permissible given federal interest and monetary threshold |
| Sentencing loss calculation (extrapolation) | Loss should be limited to videotaped incidents; extrapolation to entire offense period unsupported | District court reasonably extrapolated videotaped incidents to the full duration; Guidelines permit reasonable estimates and extrapolation | Court: Affirmed loss > $550,000; district court’s extrapolation and findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004) (upheld § 666 and rejected requirement that statute include nexus-to-federal-funds as an element)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Cloud, 680 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2012) (district court may make reasonable estimates of loss for sentencing)
- United States v. Pierce, 409 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2005) (extrapolation may be used to compute loss)
- United States v. Jones, 716 F.3d 851 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for loss amount is clear error)
- United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2012) (review of statutory constitutionality de novo)
- United States v. Hines, 541 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases rejecting nexus-as-element argument)