United States v. Samuel Ocasio
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8028
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Samuel Ocasio, a Baltimore Police Department officer, was indicted and convicted (jury, 2012) of one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and three substantive Hobbs Act extortion counts (18 U.S.C. § 1951) for participating in a kickback scheme that funneled wrecked vehicles to Majestic Auto Repair in exchange for cash payments.
- The government’s theory: dozens of BPD officers referred accident victims to Majestic; Majestic owners Moreno and Mejia paid officers $150–$300 per referral; the scheme involved calls, on-scene direction to victims, and cash pick-ups; some officers also obtained services or insurance reimbursements for related repairs.
- The original indictment named Moreno and Mejia as both coconspirators and victims; many other indicted officers pleaded guilty pursuant to plea agreements and agreed to testify against Ocasio; a superseding indictment charged Ocasio and Manrich jointly on Count One (conspiracy) and separately charged substantive extortion counts.
- At trial the jury heard recordings, witness testimony, and overt acts (including three specific referrals underlying the extortion counts) and convicted Ocasio on all counts; Manrich pleaded guilty mid-trial.
- Sentencing: 18 months imprisonment, three years supervised release, and restitution of $1,500 to the BPD (cash payments). The court later added $1,870.58 restitution to Erie Insurance, which Ocasio appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 371 conspiracy conviction where alleged victims (Moreno/Mejia) were also named coconspirators | Ocasio: Hobbs Act conspiracy requires obtaining property “from another” outside the conspiracy; one cannot conspire to extort one’s own coconspirator; relying on Brock, conviction invalid | Government: Fourth Circuit precedent (Spitler) permits prosecution of an active participant who is more than a mere victim; conspiracy law treats active coconspirators as liable for common scheme | Affirmed — Spitler governs; a participant who does more than mere acquiescence can be a coconspirator and guilty of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion; Brock rejected as contrary to Fourth Circuit precedent |
| Application of "mere acquiescence" vs. active participation standard | Ocasio: allowing coconspirator-victims undermines rule against treating every extortion victim as a conspirator | Ocasio (Gov’t counter): Spitler distinguishes mere acquiescence from active inducement/solicitation; only active participation converts a payor into a coconspirator | Held: Spitler’s active-participation standard controls; mere acquiescence does not automatically create conspiracy liability |
| Use of coconspirator statements/overt acts to prove Count One | Ocasio: contention that Count One relied on improper theory and therefore joinder/prejudicial use of Manrich’s acts | Government: overt acts by any conspirator are attributable to all; jury instructed accordingly | Held: Proper instruction and evidence supported attributing foresee able acts of coconspirators; conviction stands |
| Restitution to Erie Insurance under VWPA | Ocasio: Erie was not a victim of the offenses of conviction; any insurance fraud was uncharged and not part of Count One | Government: trial and sentencing court tied Erie’s loss to scheme (insurance reimbursements caused by added damage/false claims) | Held: Vacated restitution to Erie — VWPA limits restitution to losses caused by offenses of conviction or acts in furtherance of conspiratorial object; insurance fraud was not an element or object of Count One and Erie was not a victim of the convicted offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spitler, 800 F.2d 1267 (4th Cir. 1986) (active participation beyond mere acquiescence can convert a putative victim into a coconspirator and support conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting liability)
- United States v. Brock, 501 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding a Hobbs Act conspiracy cannot reach conduct where the conspirators are the victims; argued by defendant but rejected by the Fourth Circuit)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right requires showing a public official obtained a payment he was not entitled to in return for official acts)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (basic conspiracy principles: coconspirators are liable for reasonably foreseeable acts in furtherance of the conspiracy)
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990) (restitution must be tied to loss caused by the offense of conviction; courts cannot award restitution for losses stemming from separate, uncharged conduct)