United States v. Michael Maggio, 2017 WL 2838214

Background

Michael Maggio, an Arkansas circuit judge campaigning for appellate office, admitted soliciting campaign contributions from a nursing-home company owner while presiding over that company’s civil case.
The owner contributed $24,000 on the day Maggio heard a motion to remit a $5.2 million verdict; Maggio reduced the award to $1 million.
Maggio pleaded guilty to bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666, stipulating he was a state agent and that the judicial district received federal funds exceeding the statutory threshold; he waived most appellate rights.
After pledging cooperation, Maggio stopped cooperating, the government withdrew favorable sentencing stipulations, and Maggio moved to withdraw his plea; the district court denied the motion.
The Sentencing Guidelines range was 51–63 months, but the district court varied upward to the statutory maximum of 120 months, explaining that a corrupt judge is especially harmful.
Maggio appealed, challenging the factual basis for his plea (including the absence of a nexus to federal funds) and the reasonableness of his sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Factual basis for guilty plea / ability to withdraw plea	Maggio: plea lacked factual basis because § 666 requires a nexus between corrupt act and federal funds; thus district court should have allowed withdrawal.	Government: Maggio’s waiver bars as-applied constitutional challenge; factual admissions and stipulations supplied sufficient basis.	Court: Appeal waiver barred the as-applied constitutional challenge; precedent forecloses a nexus element and Maggio’s stipulations and admissions provided an adequate factual basis.
Appeal waiver and subject-matter jurisdiction	Maggio: lack of federal jurisdiction is nonwaivable; his constitutional challenge therefore survives waiver.	Government: as-applied constitutional claims are not jurisdictional and are subject to waiver; Seay controls.	Court: As-applied challenges are not jurisdictional; waiver applies to bar the constitutional challenge.
Applicability of § 666 (whether judge’s actions were ‘in connection with’ agency business)	Maggio: his rulings were not sufficiently connected to the federally funded agency; relies on Whitfield.	Government: Maggio was acting in connection with the business of the judicial district on which he sat; Whitfield is distinguishable.	Court: § 666 does not require a nexus to federal funds; when a judge remits a judgment he acts in connection with his court’s business—§ 666 applies.
Sentence reasonableness / upward variance	Maggio: upward variance double-counted his status as a public official already addressed by the Guidelines.	Government: district court reasonably considered Maggio’s role as a judge who corrupted core judicial duties, distinguishing ordinary public-official enhancements.	Court: No abuse of discretion; district court permissibly relied on the particular gravity of a judge taking a bribe adjudicating a case to justify an upward variance to the statutory maximum.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Hines, 541 F.3d 833 (8th Cir.) (interpreting § 666 to require no separate nexus element between corrupt act and federal funds)
United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010) (as-applied constitutional challenges are not jurisdictional and can be foreclosed by a guilty plea)
Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004) (upholding § 666 against challenges to its reach over state and local corruption)
United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2009) (vacating § 666 convictions where corrupt acts were held not to be connected to the functioning of the federally funded agency)
United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (validity and enforcement of appellate-waiver provisions)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review and deference for sentencing decisions)