Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

United States v. James S. Doran

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided April 26, 2017No. 16-10927Published

1Concurring in the judgmentJill Pryor, Circuit Judge

I agree with my colleagues that Doran’s conviction cannot stand. I reach that conclusion by a different route, however. In a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 666, the government must, in addition to proving the criminal conduct (embezzling, stealing, obtaining by fraud, or converting property), identify the relevant organization to which the statute refers and prove that it received over $10,000 in qualifying federal benefits “in any one year period.”1 18 U.S.C. § 666(b). As I read § 666, the relevant organization here is Florida State University (“FSU”), the organization that employed Doran,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Sabri v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Bond v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  5. United States v. ComstockSupreme Court of the United States · 2010

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API