United States v. Lee John Maher
955 F.3d 880
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background:
- Maher and employee Long were indicted May 17, 2016 on (1) conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and to receive/conceal/retain federal grant funds (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341, 1343, 641) and (2) substantive receiving/retaining § 641 for roughly $2.232 million paid by Florida under a DOE grant.
- State issued a $2,232,000 grant check that Clean Fuel negotiated on December 10, 2010; Maher transferred funds to bank accounts and spent them on personal and business expenses.
- The Office of Energy questioned performance in early 2012; Clean Fuel submitted false progress reports and continued to misrepresent purchase/installation of the generator through November 2012.
- At trial the jury found Maher guilty on both counts and issued a special verdict finding guilt as to all three conspiracy objectives; Maher moved unsuccessfully for acquittal based on the statute of limitations.
- On appeal Maher argued both counts were time-barred under the five-year limitations period (18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)), citing December 10, 2010 (check negotiation) as the triggering date; the government argued the § 641 count was a continuing offense and that Maher did not dispute timely indictment for the mail- and wire-fraud conspiracy objectives.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: (1) conspiracy conviction affirmed based on undisputed timely mail- and wire-fraud objectives; (2) § 641 conviction affirmed because unlawful retention is a continuing offense and last retention (May 31, 2011) put indictment within the limitations period.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy charge was time‑barred | Maher: conspiracy completed when funds were received (Dec 10, 2010); limitations expired before indictment | Government: jury found Maher conspired to commit mail and wire fraud within 5 years; those objectives sustain conviction | Affirmed — conviction stands because jury found timely conspiracy as to mail/wire fraud objectives |
| Whether § 641 receiving/retaining count was time‑barred | Maher: limitations began when funds were deposited/converted (Dec 10, 2010); indictment untimely | Government: ‘‘retain’’ is a continuing offense; limitations run from last retention (may 2011) | Affirmed — retaining government funds is continuing; last retention left time remaining, indictment timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) (limitations policy and continuing‑offense principles)
- United States v. Midstate Horticultural Co., 306 U.S. 161 (1939) (definition of continuing offense)
- United States v. Pacchioli, 718 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2013) (limitations period runs from last act that furthers continuing offense)
- United States v. D'Angelo, 819 F.2d 1062 (11th Cir. 1987) (possession as a continuing offense)
- United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir. 1986) (possession with intent to distribute is continuing)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (multiple independent grounds; conviction stands if any ground valid)
- United States v. Medina, 485 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2007) (multi‑object conspiracy upheld if evidence supports any charged object)
- United States v. Minchew, 417 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1969) (indictment may allege disjunctive statutory means conjunctively; government need prove only one)