U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1229. United States v. Hardin. 10/25/2017. D.Colo. Judge McKay. Bribery— Threshold Amount of Bribe—Subject Matter of Bribe.
Defendant supervised contracts involving small businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises for the Civil Rights Division of the Regional Transportation District (RTD). Ward owned a busing company that was certified as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and Small Business Enterprise. The busing company contracted with RTD to provide local bus service for people with disabilities. Ward also represented Build Your Dream (BYD), a manufacturer of automobiles and rechargeable batteries, to sell their merchandise in the Denver area.
Ward paid defendant monthly bribes in exchange for his help with the busing contract, which ultimately expired. Ward then began working as an informant with the FBI to investigate defendant for bribery. Ward testified that he discussed with defendant RTD’s plan to purchase 10 shuttle buses, which would result in BYD paying defendant a large sum of money if the company got the deal. Defendant supplied Ward with information such as technical specifications for the buses and a list of competing bidders’ strengths and weaknesses, in exchange for cash payments totaling $4,000. Before BYD could get the contract, defendant was arrested. A jury convicted defendant of three counts of bribery involving a program that receives federal funds. Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the government had not shown the bribes he solicited involved anything of value involving $5,000 or more, as required by the statute. The district court denied his motion.
On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to show the bribes were made in connection with any RTD business that involved $5,000 or more. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the $5,000 threshold was measured not by the value of RTD’s request for a proposal to solicit bids, but the value of the intended contract to purchase shuttle buses. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the business or transaction at issue was RTD’s intended purchase of shuttle buses, not just the request for proposal. A rational trier of fact could reasonably find that the informant paid for defendant’s help with the lucrative shuttle-bus-purchase contract, whose value exceeded the $5,000 monetary threshold in the statute.
Defendant also argued that 18 USC § 666 was impermissibly vague as applied to him. The statute was sufficiently definite to give defendant fair notice of the criminality of his conduct.
The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Nos. 16-1434, 16-1465, and 16-1502. First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed.
10/30/2017. D.Colo. Judge Matheson. Preliminary Injunction—Former Employee—Defend Trade Secrets Act—Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act—Irreparable Harm Showing Required.
Malamed worked for First Western Capital...