United States v. Quincy Richard, Sr.
775 F.3d 287
5th Cir.2014Background
- Quincy Richard, Sr. was a St. Landry Parish School Board member charged with bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666.
- The scheme involved Richard and Miller pressuring applicant Cassimere to pay for support to become Superintendent.
- Cassimere, unaware he was being recorded by FBI, met multiple times with envelopes of money provided by the FBI.
- At a September 24, 2012 meeting, Cassimere handed Richard and Miller envelopes containing $5,000 each; Richard left with a bribe envelope after being confronted by an FBI agent.
- Richard was convicted on three counts (one conspiracy to commit bribery and two bribery counts) after trial and sentenced to concurrent terms.
- During the trial, a state-court judgment declaring Richard ineligible to serve on the Board was excluded as irrelevant to § 666 status; he nonetheless served as a Board member during the conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency under § 666 | Richard contends indictment fails to notice the crime adequately. | Richard argues the indictment omits certain particulars (federal program, specific transaction, name of bribe recipient). | Indictment adequate; closely tracks § 666 elements. |
| Constitutionality of § 666 as applied | Richard challenges § 666 as applied to education context. | Sabri supports § 666’s nexus allowances; education context not a constitutional flaw. | As applied, § 666 remains constitutional. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 666 elements | Richard challenges jurisdictional element, transactional element, and conspiracy evidence. | Government proved $10,000+ in federal funds, $5,000 bribe value, and a conspiratorial agreement. | Sufficient evidence supported jurisdiction, transactional element, and conspiracy. |
| Evidentiary ruling excluding state judgment | Exclusion of the state-court judgment deprived him of a defense on agency status. | Judgment irrelevant to federal agency status and could confuse jurors. | No reversible error under plain-error review. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simpson, 741 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 2014) (indictment sufficiency reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Lavergne, 805 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1986) (use of record evidence to inform double jeopardy)
- United States v. Marmolejo, 89 F.3d 1185 (5th Cir. 1996) (value of bribe used to satisfy transactional element)
- United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 2009) (application of Sabri to school-district context)
- United States v. Shoemaker, 746 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 2014) (conspiracy evidence may be sufficient even with accomplice testimony)
- United States v. Roussel, 705 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2013) (offense conduct includes conduct of conviction and relevant conduct)
- Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (Supreme Court 2004) (necessary and proper clause permits federal funds nexus flexibility)
- United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error and evidentiary principles in Fifth Circuit)
- United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard and sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Blocker, 104 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 1997) (plain-error review standards for evidentiary rulings)