United States v. Jonathan Pinson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10766
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jonathan Pinson, a member and chairman of the Board of Trustees at South Carolina State University (SCSU), was indicted on RICO conspiracy, federal program theft (§ 666), honest-services fraud, mail/wire fraud, money laundering, and false-statement counts based on four separate ventures: a SCSU homecoming concert, an attempted SCSU purchase of Sportsman’s Retreat, a private diaper business (Supremes, LLC) funded by a county grant, and a real-estate developer project (Village at River’s Edge, VRE) that received HUD-funded payments via the Columbia Housing Authority (CHA).
- Government witnesses (cooperators) testified that Pinson and associates arranged kickbacks for SCSU-related approvals and submitted inflated/false invoices or withheld payments in the grant-funded projects; wiretap records and transaction records were admitted.
- A jury convicted Pinson on RICO conspiracy, two § 666 counts, honest-services fraud, multiple mail/wire fraud counts, money laundering, and false-statement counts; Robinson (co-defendant) was acquitted.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed sufficiency of the evidence de novo and also considered whether jury instructions constructively amended the indictment.
- The court vacated Pinson’s convictions for RICO conspiracy and the two § 666 counts (government program theft), but affirmed convictions for honest-services fraud, mail/wire fraud, money laundering (as supported by the fraud counts), and false statements; remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Pinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for RICO conspiracy (existence of single enterprise, pattern of racketeering) | The four schemes were interconnected enterprises run to enrich associates; predicate acts were related and showed continuity | Schemes were distinct with different participants and methods; only Pinson overlapped, so no single enterprise or pattern | Vacated RICO conviction — evidence insufficient to prove a single association‑in‑fact enterprise or the required pattern/continuity |
| Sufficiency of evidence under § 666 (Count 2 — Marion County/Supremes) | Mims and others acted to procure and misuse county grant funds; Pinson aided and abetted conversion of funds | Mims was not an “agent” of Marion County (he was hired by Supremes and reported to private parties), so § 666 does not apply | Vacated Count 2 — insufficient proof that Mims was an agent of the covered entity |
| Sufficiency of evidence under § 666 (Count 3 — VRE/CHA) | CHA’s federal grant payments to VRE made VRE a recipient of federal “benefits” within § 666; Pinson misapplied funds | Payments to VRE were strictly for construction reimbursement/commercial transactions, not federal "benefits" under Fischer | Vacated Count 3 — the CHA payments to VRE were not § 666 “benefits” as they were reimbursement for an immediate transaction |
| Constructive amendment / jury instruction on "public official" for honest-services counts | Jury instructions tracked charged conduct and required proof of bribery/kickbacks; indictment did not limit the term to state-law definitions | District court used a Black’s Law Dictionary definition rather than a state-law definition, broadening the charged theory | Rejected — no constructive amendment; indictment did not confine "public official" to South Carolina statutory definition |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (establishes RICO conspiracy elements and requirement of common criminal objective)
- Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (definition of enterprise under RICO)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (association‑in‑fact enterprise structural features)
- H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (pattern of racketeering: relationship and continuity tests)
- Fischer v. United States, 529 U.S. 667 (definition of “benefit” under § 666 and limits on usual‑course payments)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (§ 1346 honest‑services fraud covers bribery/kickback schemes)
- United States v. Jackson, 608 F.3d 193 (broad jurisdictional nexus for § 1001 false‑statements in frauds on federal funds)
- United States v. Grubb, 11 F.3d 426 (open‑ended continuity where official’s misuse of office posed ongoing threat)