|Syllabus ||Opinion |
[ Kennedy ]
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
SALINAS v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96738. Argued October 8, 1997Decided December 2, 1997.
This federal prosecution arose from a scheme in which a Texas county sheriff accepted money, and his deputy, petitioner Salinas, accepted two watches and a truck, in exchange for permitting women to make so-called contact visits to one Beltran, a federal prisoner housed in the county jail pursuant to an agreement with the Federal Government. Salinas was charged with one count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), one count of conspiracy to violate RICO, §1962(d), and two counts of bribery, §666(a)(1)(B). The jury convicted him on all but the substantive RICO count, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
1. Section 666(a)(1)(B) does not require the Government to prove the bribe in question had a demonstrated effect upon federal funds. The enactments plain language is expansive and unqualified, both as to the bribes forbidden and the entities covered, demonstrating by its reference to any business or transaction, §666(a)(1)(B), that it is not confined to transactions affecting federal funds; by its application to all cases in which an organization, government, or agency receives a specified amount of federal benefits, §666(b), that it reaches the scheme involved here; and by its prohibition on accepting anything of value, §666(a)(1)(B), that it encompasses the transfers of personal property to petitioner in exchange for his favorable treatment of Beltran. Given the statutes plain and unambiguous meaning, petitioner is not aided by the legislative history, see, e.g., United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 680, or by the plain-statement rule set forth in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460461, and McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 360, see, e.g., Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 57, n. 9. Moreover, the construction he seeks cannot stand when viewed in light of the pre-§666 statutory frameworkwhich limited federal bribery prohibitions to public official[s], defined as officer[s] or employee[s] or person[s] acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any … branch … thereof, and which was interpreted by some lower courts not to include state and local officialsand the expansion prescribed by §666(a)(1)(B), which was designed to extend coverage to bribes offered to state and local officials employed by agencies receiving federal funds. Under this Courts construction, §666(a)(1)(B) is constitutional as applied in this case. Its application to petitioner did not extend federal power beyond its proper bounds, since the preferential treatment accorded Beltran was a threat to the integrity and proper operation of the federal program under which the jail was managed. See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259. Pp. 39.
2. To be convicted of conspiracy to violate RICO under §1962(d), the conspirator need not himself have committed or agreed to commit the two or more predicate acts, such as bribery, requisite for a substantive RICO offense under §1962(c). Section 1962(d)which forbids any person to conspire to violate §1962(c)is even more comprehensive than the general conspiracy provision applicable to federal crimes, §371, since it contains no requirement of an overt or specific act to effect the conspiracys object. Presuming Congress intended the to conspire phrase to have its ordinary meaning under the criminal law, see Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263, well-established principles and contemporary understanding demonstrate that, although a conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense, it suffices that he adopt the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal endeavor, and he need not agree to undertake all of the acts necessary for the crimes completion. Salinas contrary interpretation of §1962(c) violates the foregoing principles and is refuted by Bannon v. United States, 156 U.S. 464, 469. Its acceptance, moreover, is not required by the rule of lenity, see United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 17. Even if Salinas did not accept or agree to accept two bribes, there was ample evidence that the sheriff committed at least two predicate acts when he accepted numerous bribes and that Salinas knew about and agreed to facilitate the scheme, and this is sufficient to support Salinas conviction under §1962(d ). Pp. 914.89 F.3d 1185, affirmed.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.