United States v. Venti
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15290
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Venti was convicted on all nine counts of a theft of government property indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 641 and sentenced to 15 months per count, running concurrently.
- Count One alleged a $330 theft by check drawn on an account that also contained CSRS funds and deposits.
- The nine counts totalled over $1,000, making the aggregate offense a felony under § 641 and § 3559(a)(3).
- OPM erroneously deposited CSRS funds after the late father’s 1990 death; these deposits continued in a joint RFCU account until December 2004.
- Count One’s January 21, 2005 check allegedly drew on funds partly from a CSRS deposit on January 3, 2005, within the five-year limitations period.
- Venti’s argument centers on whether the conversion occurred within the five-year statute of limitations or whether pre-2004 CSRS funds render Count One stale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count One is time-barred under the five-year statute of limitations. | Prosecution: all elements occurred after 12/9/2004 due to jury instruction and within period. | Venti: some funds pre-12/9/2004; conversion not continuing; count should be dismissed. | Count One not time-barred; sufficient within-period conduct supported by jury verdict. |
| Whether a substantial portion of the funds in the account within the period suffices to convict on the allegedly stale portion. | Substantial portion within period supports conviction. | Only funds deposited before period could taint the charge. | Substantial portion within period suffices; conviction sustained. |
| Whether the government needed to prove the entire amount derived from within the period or merely a thing of value was unlawfully obtained. | § 641 requires a thing of value; exact value not necessary. | Exact origin of funds must be proven to match the check’s amount. | Need only show a thing of value; amount can be comprised of funds both inside and outside the period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales-Vallellanes v. Potter, 605 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2010) (jury follows court’s instructions; verdict stands if supported by charge)
- United States v. García-Pastrana, 584 F.3d 351 (1st Cir. 2009) (substantial portion of account containing illegal funds supports conviction)
- United States v. Donato-Morales, 382 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2004) (proof of ‘thing of value’ not exact value required)
- United States v. Torres Santiago, 729 F.2d 38 (1st Cir. 1984) (§ 641 requires knowing receipt/retention of a thing of value)
- United States v. Walsh, 928 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1991) (prosecution can proceed if at least one element occurred within period)
- Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., 552 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for evaluating partial-invalidations of claims)
- United States v. Rouleau, 894 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1990) (statute begins to run when crime is complete)