United States v. Maurice William Campbell, Jr.
765 F.3d 1291
11th Cir.2014Background
- Maurice W. Campbell Jr., as State Director of the Alabama Small Business Development Consortium (ASBDC), formed a private nonprofit (the Institute) to receive ~$7.3M in state funds intended for ASBDC programs.
- The Institute was separate from the state, not auditable by state examiners, and funneled only ~$1.4M (≈20%) to ASBDC member centers; the remainder was spent on personal and allegedly fraudulent expenditures.
- Campbell and co-conspirators used Institute funds for personal items, vacations, payments to a group called the “Little Sisters,” and transfers through a sham lease to accounts controlled by Campbell; many co-conspirators pleaded guilty and testified at trial.
- A federal jury convicted Campbell on 96 counts (mail and wire fraud, money laundering, monetary transaction offenses, and conspiracy). The PSI calculated an offense level based on a $7.3M loss, later reduced by $1.4M credit to $5.9M (18-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(1)).
- Campbell argued the court should use his personal gain (~$300K) or itemize/credit legitimate Institute operating expenses; the district court found loss reasonably estimated at >$2.5M and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 188 months and $5.9M restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Campbell's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | Trial record and cooperator testimony overwhelmingly establish intent and fraudulent scheme | Alleged failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: evidence was overwhelming; convictions stand |
| Amount of loss under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(1) | Entire state funding to Institute is proper starting point; credit $1.4M actually disbursed to ASBDC → $5.9M loss (18-level) | Loss should be defendant’s gain or lower amount; only incremental overbilling should count (~$300K) | Affirmed: district court reasonably estimated loss >$2.5M and properly used transfers to Institute as starting point |
| Credit for legitimate operating expenses | Many such expenses were part of scheme and not creditable; only money returned/services rendered before detection are creditable | Should credit lobbying, legal, accounting, salaries, travel, taxes, etc., reducing loss below enhancement threshold | Affirmed: court permissibly refused broad credits because many expenses perpetuated the fraud; credit for $1.4M disbursed only |
| Procedural/substantive reasonableness of sentence | District court correctly calculated Guidelines, considered §3553(a), and explained variance to 188 months | Sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable | Affirmed: no procedural error; variance properly justified; sentence reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2013) (Government bears preponderance burden on disputed sentencing facts)
- United States v. Munoz, 430 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2005) (loss calculation must be supported by reliable, specific evidence)
- United States v. Orton, 73 F.3d 331 (11th Cir. 1996) (no exhaustive itemization required where loss estimate is reasonable)
- United States v. Hunter, 323 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2003) (loss may include reasonably foreseeable harm caused by co-conspirators)
- United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011) (elements of mail/wire fraud require intent to defraud)
- United States v. Christo, 129 F.3d 578 (11th Cir. 1997) (money laundering requires proceeds of a completed crime)
- United States v. Washington, 715 F.3d 975 (6th Cir. 2013) (district court may treat entire program payments as loss where program is a sham)