United States v. Whiteford
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7468
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Curtis Whiteford and Michael Wheeler, U.S. Army Reserve officers, served with the CPA in Iraq and were charged with conspiring to defraud the CPA-SC and related offenses.
- Conspiracy involved bid-rigging to steer CPA-SC contracts to Philip Bloom and his companies, in exchange for gifts and payments.
- Evidence showed a meeting in Baghdad and later ongoing coordination to split contracts under $500,000 to evade regulations, with Bloom funding bribes and kickbacks.
- Wheeler aided GBG Logistics in obtaining approximately $5.5 million in contracts; Whiteford received gifts and participated in discussing a potential Iraqi airline venture for Bloom.
- Co-conspirators Stein, Hopfengardner, and Harrison cooperated with prosecutors; Stein and Hopfengardner facilitated bribe payments and information sharing; Harrison aided in transporting funds.
- Whiteford movings and Wheeler’s post-arrest statements and search were litigated; trial resulted in convictions on bribery and related offenses, with sentences imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of participation | Whiteford/Wheeler joined the conspiracy with knowledge and intent. | Evidence insufficient to prove their knowing participation. | Evidence sufficient to prove knowing participation in bribery and related conspiracy. |
| Use of new-trial grounds | Bloom's coaching evidence merits new trial. | Bloom coaching is newly discovered and would not likely produce acquittal; jury instructions were proper. | District court did not abuse discretion; no new trial warranted. |
| Use immunity for co-conspirator Harrison | Grant use immunity to Harrison to secure essential testimony. | Immunity unnecessary and would conflict with government's interests. | No abuse of discretion; Harrison's testimony not clearly exculpatory. |
| Suppression of statements and weapons (Wheeler) | Statements and seized weapons should be suppressed as involuntary. | Miranda waiver valid; statements and search consent voluntary. | Miranda waiver valid; statements and weapons admissible. |
| Sentencing calculations and fairness | Loss amount and enhancements appropriately applied; sentences reasonable. | Errors in loss calculation and §3553(a) considerations. | Convictions and sentences affirmed; loss calculation and enhancements upheld; §3553(a) factors adequately considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194 (3d Cir.2010) (en banc; conspiracy elements and circumstantial proof)
- United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir.2002) (conspiracy elements and overt acts)
- United States v. Gambone, 314 F.3d 163 (3d Cir.2003) (totality of evidence and inferences favorable to government)
- United States v. Kelly, 892 F.2d 255 (3d Cir.1989) (co-conspirator knowledge may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Flores, 454 F.3d 149 (3d Cir.2006) (willful blindness and knowledge for conspiracy)
- United States v. McKee, 506 F.3d 225 (3d Cir.2007) (defraud prong interpretations under § 371)
- Quiles, 618 F.3d 383 (3d Cir.2010) (newly discovered evidence; not inherently acquittal compelling)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (validity of Miranda waiver requires voluntary knowingly waiver)
- Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482 (1984) (federal bribery applies to all persons acting for the United States)
- McKee, 506 F.3d 225 (3d Cir.2007) (defraud vs offenses prong distinctions)
- Rankin v. United States, 870 F.2d 109 (3d Cir.1989) (defraud prong demonstrating intent to defraud federal functions)