United States v. Paul Guertin, 67 F.4th 445

Paul M. Guertin, a former State Department Foreign Service Officer assigned in Shanghai, adjudicated U.S. visa applications and was required to maintain a Top Secret security clearance.
A grand jury charged Guertin with wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and obstruction of an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)); the allegations included concealing a sexual relationship with a visa applicant, undisclosed loan collateralized by his home, gambling debts, and using personal email for applicant information.
The indictment alleged Guertin lied on security-clearance renewals (SF-86) to maintain his clearance, employment, and salary, thereby defrauding the State Department.
The district court granted Guertin’s motion to dismiss both counts, holding the wire fraud count insufficient because § 1343 requires a scheme to obtain money or property and the allegations amounted to an honest‑services theory; it also dismissed the § 1512(c)(2) count.
The Government appealed only the dismissal of the § 1343 count; Guertin cross‑appealed the district court’s denial of his suppression motion and request for a Franks hearing.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of the wire fraud count and dismissed Guertin’s cross‑appeal as moot because he prevailed on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment states wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 when defendant lied on security‑clearance forms to keep his job and salary	Guertin lied to obtain the renewed security clearance necessary for his job and thereby obtained salary/property; that deception supports § 1343	Guertin’s lies at most deprived the employer of his honest services; no scheme to obtain money or property is plausibly alleged	Affirmed dismissal: § 1343 reaches only schemes to deprive another of money or property; the indictment alleges at most honest‑services misconduct, not property deprivation
Whether a prevailing defendant may appeal the denial of suppression and a Franks hearing after the indictment was dismissed	Government did not contest appealability	Guertin sought review of suppression/Franks denials	Dismissed Guertin’s cross‑appeal: as the prevailing party on the merits he lacks Article III standing to review collateral adverse rulings without a continuing stake

Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020) (wire fraud limited to schemes to deprive victim of money or property)
McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) (fraud statutes limited to protection of property rights, not intangible honest‑services claims)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (§ 1346 (honest‑services) confined to bribery and kickback schemes)
Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000) (licenses and similar intangible regulatory interests are not property for mail/fraud statutes)
United States v. Shellef, 507 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2007) (distinguishes misrepresentations that alter the bargain from those that merely induce a party to enter a transaction)
United States v. Takhalov, 827 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2016) (wire/mail fraud requires misrepresentation about the nature of the bargain itself)
United States v. Yates, 16 F.4th 256 (9th Cir. 2021) (distinguishes schemes to obtain new/higher salary from schemes to maintain existing salary)
United States v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 1997) (no mail fraud where nondisclosure did not cause pecuniary harm or loss of bargain)