Case Information
*1 Before W OOD Chief Judge , P OSNER H AMILTON , Circuit Judges .
H AMILTON Circuit Judge
. Gustavo Am brosio each convicted conspiracy com mit bribery, now appeals conviction. affirm. convictions stem scheme local California obtain contract. local offi *2 cial was fictional, however, invented FBI as part an undercover government sting operation. sting operation reached its denouement when a bribery check was handed an undercover agent, and Buenrostro and Medrano charged for their roles scheme. third defendant was also charged with conspiracy:
James Barta. Like Buenrostro Medrano, Barta was tried convicted. Barta argued on appeal he en trapped into conspiracy. resolved his appeal a sep arate opinion concluding he been entrapped as a matter law. See Barta Neither nor Medrano argued (or could argued) entrapment defense, challenges his conviction grounds. Both Medrano argue there not sufficient financial elements federal bribery statute support treating their conspiracy as a crime. Medrano argues his sentence substantively unreasonable.
I. Factual Background
This sting operation began, as many do, a criminal turned cooperating witness. One Michael DiFoggio worked cooperating witness for FBI exchange for prom ise recommend lesser sentence tax evasion case. DiFoggio introduced man purporting health care consultant named George Castro. Castro told return payment corrupt official, obtain approval Angeles County purchase medical band ages its hospital system. reality “Castro” un dercover FBI there official. did know this, course, so when medical *3 bandages deal concluded, approached Castro about making another deal.
On next deal—the one issue here—Medrano teamed up with old friend Buenrostro. Buenrostro and undercover “Castro” eventually brought Barta into discussions. Over course several meetings, deal began to take shape. bribe would paid to corrupt official by way Castro (who would take piece bribe for himself). exchange for bribe, Castro and corrupt would ensure Angeles County would award contract providing pharmaceutical dis pensing services to Sav Rx, prescription benefit manage ment company founded by Barta. Sav Rx service contract partnering with business started by Buenrostro specifically purpose.
At last meeting course conspiracy, Barta wrote check Castro. This constituted Barta’s percent share demanded Castro (and official) secure approval. Buenrostro were pay their percent share Castro sometime shortly after last meeting. Before happen, all three defendants were arrested. Fur ther background bribery scheme can Barta opinion, any facts important Medrano’s appeals are included opinion.
II. Analysis were convicted violating
U.S.C. § prohibits conspiracies “to commit any offense against States.” Defendants charged conspiring commit bribery under U.S.C. *4 makes bribery federal crime only under certain circumstances. both contend that failed to present evidence sufficient to prove doubt they conspired to commit bribery under circumstances required to qualify fed ‐ eral crime under § 666. Assessing claim requires us to parse ponderous language 666.
Section 666(a)(2) prescribes penalties anyone who “corruptly gives, offers, or agrees give anything value any person, with intent influence or reward an agent an organization or State, local or Indian tribal govern ‐ ment, or any agency thereof, connection any busi ‐ ness, transaction, or series transactions such organiza ‐ tion, government, or agency involving anything value $5,000 or more.” Subsection 666(b) adds further require ment, “the organization, government, or agency re ceives, any one year period, benefits excess $10,000 under Federal program involving grant, contract, subsi dy, loan, guarantee, insurance, form Federal assis tance.”
Both argue govern ment failed present sufficient pharma ceutical dispensing they aimed win bribing corrupt official should valued more. They attack sufficiency show entity receiving over per year benefits. Finally, argues month prison sentence received substantive ly unreasonable. (Buenrostro does challenge sen tence.) address these arguments turn. *5 5 1278 14 1100
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
“We will overturn a verdict for insufficiency the evi dence only if, after viewing the the light most favorable to the government, the record is devoid evi dence which a rational trier fact find guilt be yond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Reed , F.3d 519, (7th Cir. 2014). instructed as to all ele ments U.S.C. § convicting it proved these elements doubt. hold gov ernment presented sufficient to support ver dicts.
1. The $5,000 Element $5,000 element § pertains “the subject matter bribe,” “must be valued at $5,000 or more.” Robinson In words, “‘business’ or ‘transaction’ sought fluenced must value $5,000 more.” Id. quoting U.S.C. 666(a)(2). business transaction sought influenced—the subject matter bribe— fictional pharmaceutical dispensing contract. simplest indicator object conspiracy value at least conspirators willing pay bribe win it. This common sense observation based “on theory benefit worth at least what bribe giver willing pay it.” Id. at (citing cases). Robinson endorsed theory holding “the amount may suffice proxy value; least it provides floor valua tion question.” Id. *6 Medrano counter this obvious point by
arguing Barta gave the $6,500 check to Castro only favor to old friend Buenrostro, not because the contract had value $5,000 more. There are two problems this argument.
First, this best “an argument the jury at trial, not us on appeal. We do not reweigh the evidence make our own credibility determinations.” United States v. Farmer F.3d (7th Cir. 2013). Even if we might be per suaded improbable version events, the jury was not. An inquiry into the sufficiency the evidence “does not ask what we would have decided if we on the jury. need not convinced evidence ourselves. Our quiry whether reasonable jury considering evidence light most favorable to government could have element offense reasonable doubt.” Jones
Second, quite apart agreed amount bribe, there ample support jury finding on element. For example, repeatedly said he ready move Angeles if needed win retain contract. certainly fer not have even considered pos sibility if had thought contract worth less $5,000. argue
should not relied subjective about val ue contract conspirators prove element since market value should proved objectively. They cite decision has endorsed proposition, however, surprising. *7 The notion objective evidence to substantiate the value deal where no contract actually signed is elu ‐ sive, to say the least. It is reminiscent the philosophical problems posed by asking whether the statement “The pre ‐ sent King France is bald” is true, false, or meaningless when there is no present King France. See Bertrand Rus ‐ sell, On Denoting Mind (1905).
Nevertheless, supports finding the conspirators agreed to pay bribe to win contract would have been worth much, much more $5,000. “An ‐ approach to valuing subject matter bribe looking to value benefit bribe giver will re ‐ ceive if successful.” Owens Castro conspirators ex pected contract call dispensing million or more prescriptions per year least two three years. benefit received defendants per prescription would have needed astoundingly low dispensing vol ume prescriptions not have proven quite beneficial. Christy Piti, who Barta’s daughter current head Sav Rx, testified hypothetical highly unrealistic thus would have been benefit de fendants. But jury required credit her testi mony point, particularly because it ren dered Medrano’s dogged pursuit con tract complete mystery. sum, sufficient sup ports finding element satisfied doubt.
2. Element Subsection 666(b) requires person being bribed organization, government, agency re *8 ceives more than $10,000 federal funds or other benefits in one year. For purposes provision, an agent is defined as “a person authorized act behalf another person or government and, the an organization or govern ‐ ment, includes servant employee, partner, direc ‐ tor, officer, manager, representative.” U.S.C. 666(d)(1). At trial the parties stipulated that Los An geles County received more federal funds the relevant period. issue we must decide is whether jury reasonable doubt the fictional official was an agent Los Angeles County.
Since official fictional, the only the make determination how Castro con spirators described official during their conversations. At one point Castro described contact, corrupt official, as “a high ranking official at county system.” This de scription seems favor government. But ar gues another point Castro made clear “county system” shorthand Los Angeles County Depart ment Health Services. reason if offi
cial agent Los Angeles County Department Health Services, then element cannot satisfied because introduced specific department’s receipt funds other benefits. Evidence record Los Angeles County Department Health Services distinct Angeles County sparse, so evi dence pointing way. light government’s burden proof, might seem spell trouble gov *9 9 14 1100 ernment. Cf. United States v. Johnson , F.3d 749, (7th Cir. 2010) (“In situation, is essentially equipoise; plausibility of inference about same, so jury necessarily have entertain rea sonable doubt on conspiracy charge.”).
But problem and that their argument depends an unstated assumption: if was an agent of Los Angeles County De partment of Health Services, then could not also have been an agent of Los Angeles County. That assumption faulty. Neither common sense nor law supports it.
Employees are included statutory definition of agents U.S.C. 666(d). infer people working Los Angeles County Department Health Services are also employees Angeles Coun ty. Prior cases already held Oklahoma Deputy State Treasurer an agent not only Treasurer also State Oklahoma itself, see United States v. Pretty , F.3d 1213, 1218–19 (10th Cir. 1996), an employee agent Indiana Department Transportation Toll Road Division an employee agent Indi ana Department Transportation, see United States v. Ago stino F.3d 1193–94 (7th Cir. hierarchy governmental entities, single person can deemed an employee and/or entities multiple levels. cases cite are easily distinguishable because local law those cases meant defendant not employee (or otherwise an agent) entity receiving more funds (or benefits). See Phillips 2000) (under Louisiana law, tax assessor *10 14 1278 14 1100 employee or agent of the local government body receiving the requisite federal funds); United States v. Sunia F. Supp. 2d (D.D.C. 2009) (defendants in the legislative branch the American Samoan were em ployees agents the executive branch agencies receiving the requisite funds).
There abundant record that, re gardless which entity entities employed corrupt official, conspirators reasonably believed Cas tro’s claims official could act on behalf Ange les County. The allure deal reason paying agreed precisely this guarantee approval sizeable county’s Board Supervisors. And definition, person qualifies “as entity” when he “authorized act behalf entity.” Keen heard sufficient support its finding element satisfied doubt.
B. Medrano’s Sentence argues month prison sentence re ceived substantively unreasonable. At time sentenc ing case, just been sentenced month prison term separate case Northern District Illinois. urged district judge here make sentence concurrent month sentence. district judge decided instead consecutive sen tence months, well below guideline range offense, needed serve purposes sentencing.
As a general rule, a “sentencing court has discretion make a sentence consecutive concurrent” an earlier sen ‐ tence. United States v. Collins F.3d (7th Cir. 2011). Medrano acknowledges this point but asserts that dis trict judge abused his discretion imposing a consecutive sentence case. find abuse discretion, but a thoughtful measured decision by Judge Tharp.
Medrano cites a where a sentence was vacated be cause a district court “failed address principal argu ment” made defendant, which was an argument concurrent sentence. Jackson Despite repeated insistence that concur rent sentence appropriate case, Medrano con tends, “the court barely addressed that argument, let alone gave it any thoughtful consideration.” This an unfortunate distortion what happened sentencing.
Judge Tharp said “fundamental question case” “how much sentence should be served con currently how much sentence should served consecutively term imprisonment Mr. already facing.” Ultimately, judge answered ques tion deciding there should “marginal increase penalty imposed as result an entirely different scheme convicted.” judge stated clear reasons imposing below guideline consecutive sentence. He instigated scheme therefore most culpable defendants. He pointed out unusually long history public corruption offenses: “as elected official, employee, now as member general public offering bribes elected *12 ‐ 1100 officials.” And found that consecutive sentence would promote general deterrence since it would send message that there no “free pass” simply because you are already facing another sentence for separate crime. Cf. Conley 2015) (affirming consecu tive sentence after observing that defendant making simi lar argument in effect arguing free pass for fense conviction).
To sure, consecutive sentences are not required even appropriate all cases. District judges are generally entrusted discretion decide question on by case basis light multiple and sometimes contradictory goals sentencing. Here Judge Tharp addressed main arguments made Medrano. He found Medrano unlikely commit further crimes upon release prison, mitigating any need specific deterrence. He acknowledged had health problems Bureau Prisons adequate treatment programs place. He explained re ceived longer sentence Barta based on his greater culpability his unusual history multiple corruption convictions. transcript sentencing hearing reflects thought care Judge Tharp put into crafting sentence. When sentencing discretion ex ercised carefully as it case, there basis us disturb result. mounts one last attack his consecutive sen
tence. He argues district judge abused discretion addressing specifically sufficiently sen tencing factors listed U.S.C. § U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b). page transcript sentencing hearing *13 shows Judge Tharp’s discussion sentencing fac tors much more thorough portrays it be. Moreover, sentencing judge simply required “tick off every possible sentencing factor detail dis cuss, separately, every nuance every argument raised … .” Collins 271. district court committed pro cedural substantive error sentencing Medrano. district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.