United States v. Michael Jimenez
705 F.3d 1305
11th Cir.2013Background
- Jimenez was Deputy Director of Fiscal and Administrative Services for Hillsborough County Head Start, a federally funded program.
- Head Start received more than $10,000 in federal funds annually; the alleged misapplication concerns a $9,000 purchase of a book.
- Jimenez’s wife authored Travel Boy; potential conflict of interest existed because she had a contractual relationship with Head Start.
- Mason directed the purchase process, including requesting quotes, initiating the order, and authorizing the $9,000 purchase under $10,000.
- Jimenez failed to disclose the conflict of interest regarding his wife’s transaction with Head Start.
- The jury convicted Jimenez of § 666 misapplying funds; the district court later vacated the honest-services conviction but denied acquittal on § 666, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports intentional misapplication under § 666 | State's position that Jimenez misapplied funds by brokering the purchase. | Insufficient evidence that Jimenez applied or directed funds; Mason directed the funds. | Insufficient evidence; reversal and acquittal on § 666 |
| What constitutes 'intentionally misapplies' in § 666 | Broad interpretation to deter misuse of federal funds. | Narrow interpretation; must show stronger control/intent to misuse. | Adopts narrower interpretation; requires showing misapplication with actor’s control over funds |
| Whether undisclosed conflict of interest suffices for § 666 | Conflict of interest can form basis for misapplication. | Conflict alone insufficient without evidence of misapplication. | Conflict alone insufficient; cannot sustain conviction |
| Who directed the application of funds | Jimenez acted to apply funds through the purchase. | Mason directed the application; Jimenez did not direct funds. | Mason directed the application; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Keen, 676 F.3d 981 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for § 666 sufficiency)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (interpretation of 'intentionally misapplies' vocab in context)
- United States v. Thompson, 484 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2007) (misapply meaning; contractor case for scope)
- United States v. Cornier-Ortiz, 361 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2004) (conflict-of-interest as part of misapplication analysis)