United States v. Nathan Van Buren
940 F.3d 1192
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Nathan Van Buren, a Cumming, GA police sergeant, accepted about $6,000 from a confidential informant (Albo) and agreed to run a license-plate check to determine whether a woman ("Carson") was an undercover officer; the interactions were recorded by the FBI as part of a sting.
- On September 2, 2015 Van Buren searched the GCIC/NCIC database for the plate PKP1568; he later admitted to investigators that he knew the search was wrong and that he ran it for money.
- A federal grand jury charged Van Buren with honest-services wire fraud (premised on bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 201) and felony computer fraud (CFAA, 18 U.S.C. § 1030); a jury convicted on both counts.
- On appeal Van Buren contested the district court’s jury instruction defining an "official act" (arguing it omitted the McDonnell limitation), challenged sufficiency of evidence, sought misdemeanor-CFAA instructions, requested good-faith instructions, and asserted a Confrontation Clause violation from admission of Albo’s recorded statements.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the district court erred by refusing Van Buren’s requested McDonnell-style instruction, vacated the honest-services conviction and remanded for a new trial on that count; it affirmed the CFAA conviction and rejected the other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Van Buren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury should have been instructed that a "question or matter" must be similar to a lawsuit, hearing, or agency determination (McDonnell rule) | The district-court instruction ("decision or action on a question or matter" requiring a "formal exercise of governmental power" and specificity) was sufficient. | The jury should have been told that a qualifying "question or matter" must be similar in nature to a lawsuit/hearing/agency determination and that mere meetings, requests, or disclosures aren't "official acts." | Reversible error to refuse the requested McDonnell-style instruction; honest-services conviction vacated and remanded. |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain a bribery-based honest-services conviction and whether the charge should be dismissed or retried | Evidence (payments, recorded promises, Van Buren’s confession) supported bribery; a proper underlying matter (e.g., an investigation) could be identified. | Government failed to identify a qualifying underlying "question or matter" under McDonnell; conviction thus legally defective. | Although instruction error required vacatur, the record contains sufficient evidence to permit retrial; remand for new trial rather than dismissal. |
| Whether the district court erred by refusing a lesser-included misdemeanor CFAA instruction and whether evidence supports felony CFAA | Evidence showed Van Buren accessed GCIC for private financial gain; felony instruction appropriate. | Jury should have been allowed to consider misdemeanor (no private-financial-gain element). | No error: no reasonable basis for a jury to acquit felony but convict misdemeanor; evidence supports felony CFAA conviction; conviction affirmed. |
| Whether admission of Albo’s recorded statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause | Recordings were admitted to provide context for Van Buren’s own statements and to show their effect on him, not to prove the truth of Albo’s assertions. | Admission deprived Van Buren of the opportunity to confront Albo (who did not testify). | No Confrontation Clause violation: Albo’s statements were admitted for non-truth purposes (context/effect), so Crawford does not bar them. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing good-faith jury instructions | There was no evidentiary foundation supporting a good-faith defense as to the specific search; refusal appropriate. | Requested good-faith instructions should have been given. | No abuse: record lacked sufficient evidence of good faith; refusal was within the district court’s discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) (clarifies "official act"—"question or matter" must be focused, concrete, and analogous to a lawsuit/hearing/administrative determination)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that an authorized user may "exceed authorized access" under the CFAA by using access for improper, nonbusiness reasons)
- United States v. Opdahl, 930 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1991) (standard for reversible error when a requested jury instruction is refused)
- United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (panel precedent binds subsequent panels unless abrogated)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause principles and the distinction for statements introduced for non-truth purposes)
- United States v. Price, 792 F.2d 994 (11th Cir. 1986) (admission of recorded statements permissible when offered to make defendant’s statements understandable rather than to prove the recorder’s assertions)