United States v. Thompson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14315
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Thompson was Executive Director of the Poverty Point Reservoir District (PPRD).
- Cleveland performed maintenance for PPRD; his wife Kathy Cleveland was Thompson's administrative assistant and processed time sheets.
- The Clevelands agreed to testify against Thompson after accusations of embezzlement.
- The government charged Thompson with one Hobbs Act count for obtaining property via extortion involving PPRD funds and Cleveland's labor.
- The government presented a bill of particulars clarifying that Thompson paid Cleveland with PPRD funds for work Thompson personally used, creating the alleged extortion scheme.
- Thompson was convicted after trial and sentenced to 18 months and restitution of $8,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial evidence constructively amended the indictment. | Government theory remained consistent with indictment via clarifications. | Evidence at trial altered the theory by focusing on Cleveland’s deprivation. | No constructive amendment; single consistent theory supported by record. |
| Whether Cleveland’s labor constitutes property deprived by extortion under Hobbs Act. | Labor provided by Cleveland constitutes property obtained by Thompson. | Cleveland was compensated; thus not deprived of property. | Labor qualifies as property; compensation does not negate deprivation; evidence sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) (indictment must not be broadened by proof at trial; constructive amendment analysis applies to essential elements)
- United States v. McMillan, 600 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing constructive amendments de novo)
- United States v. Lisinski, 728 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1984) (evidence can explain, not amend, an indictment)
- United States v. Reasor, 418 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2005) (limits on variance between indictment and proof)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (extortion complete when payment obtained; quid pro quo need not be fulfilled)
- Scheidler v. NOW, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003) (obtaining property required for Hobbs Act extortion; mere interference not enough)
- Delano v. United States, 55 F.3d 720 (2d Cir. 1995) (labor/services can constitute property under Hobbs Act)