United States v. Smith

(coneurring/dissenting).

Although I agree with the reasoning and results reached by my brethren in Parts I, IV, V and VI of the majority opinion, I disassociate myself from the reasoning and result reached in Parts II and III. My basic disagreement is with their stated view that the conduct of the accused did not amount to use of his position to influence subordinates to lend him money, and their implied view, though not directly addressed, that the regulation is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

At the outset I note that AFR 30-30 proscribes using one’s position to coerce, induce, or…