United States v. Walter Teel
691 F.3d 578
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellants Teel, Minor, and Whitfield challenge convictions and sentences after remand for resentencing in Whitfield.
- Supreme Court decision Skilling v. United States narrowed honest-services fraud; district court resentenced the appellants.
- Appellants contend jury instructions and indictment improperly defined or charged honest-services fraud under §1346.
- We affirm the judgments; issues largely governed by law-of-the-case and mandate-rule principles.
- Arguments about sentencing focus on loss/benefit calculations, vindictiveness, and fines, with some reliance on prior Whitfield findings.
- Court applies de novo review to legal issues and clear-error review to factual sentencing determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skilling allows reexamination of the indictment and jury instructions. | Whitfield argues Skilling creates intervening-law change. | Appellants contend for relief under intervening-change exception to mandate rule. | No intervening-change exception; mandate rule bars review; convictions affirmed. |
| Whether the district court reframed bribery-based loss calculations on remand. | Whitfield/Minor contend loss should be based on different intrinsic value of Marks. | District court acted within discretion using intrinsic value estimate and actual award. | District court's loss calculation not clearly erroneous; calculations upheld. |
| Whether Whitfield’s longer count-seven sentence was vindictive under Pearce. | Increased sentence beyond original for related bribery counts constitutes vindictiveness. | Aggregate sentencing approach shows no vindictiveness; sentence was lenient overall. | No vindictiveness; aggregate comparison supports non-punitive rationale. |
| Whether Minor's fine amount was appropriate given ability to pay and non-socioeconomic considerations. | Fine variation based on assets/ability to pay was improper conduct under Painter/Graham. | Court properly used ability to pay to set a punitive, tailored fine; not a departure based on wealth. | Fine determined within court's discretion; not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (S. Ct. 2010) (limits §1346 reach to bribery/kickbacks; uniform national standard)
- Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2010) (prior panel decision guiding on jury instructions and law of the case)
- Pineiro, 470 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2006) (mandate rule and waiver approach on remand)
- McCrimmon, 443 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2006) (mandate rule and exception framework)
- Carales-Villalta, 617 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2010) (law-of-the-case deference and remand conduct)
- Tapia, U.S. 2011 (S. Ct. 2011) (rehabilitation considerations in sentencing; limits on confinement for rehab)