U.S. v. Pendergraft

Citation297 F.3d 1198
Decision Date16 July 2002
Docket NumberNo. 01-13057.,01-13057.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Scott PENDERGRAFT, Michael Spielvogel, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Lucinda M. Finley, Buffalo, NY, Daniel N. Brodersen, Miller, South & Milhausen, P.A., Winter Park, FL, Bruce Rogow, Beverly A. Pohl, Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.

Charles L. Truncale, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before TJOFLAT, RONEY and COX, Circuit Judges.

COX, Circuit Judge:

James Scott Pendergraft and Michael Spielvogel were convicted, following a jury trial, for (1) attempted extortion, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, (2) mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and (3) conspiracy to commit extortion, mail fraud, and perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Spielvogel was also convicted of filing a false affidavit, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623, and making a false statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Pendergraft and Spielvogel appeal, challenging their convictions and sentences.

The charges against Pendergraft and Spielvogel arose out of their threat to seek damages in a lawsuit against Marion County, Florida, and to use false evidence in support of the lawsuit. Because we conclude that their threat was neither "wrongful" within the meaning of the Hobbs Act nor a "scheme to defraud" within the meaning of the mail-fraud statute, we reverse the attempted extortion and mail-fraud convictions, and we vacate the conspiracy convictions. However, we affirm Spielvogel's convictions for perjury and making false statements.

I. BACKGROUND
A. FACTS

Pendergraft is a physician specializing in maternal-fetal medicine.1 As part of his practice, he performs abortions, including late-term, or "partial-birth," abortions. He opened the Orlando Women's Center in Orlando, Florida, in 1996. In 1997, seeking to expand his Florida practice, Pendergraft purchased a medical building in Ocala, Florida, for about $200,000.

Ocala is the county seat of Marion County. In 1989, an abortion clinic in Ocala, the All Women's Health Center, was destroyed by an arsonist, and Ocala had not had an abortion clinic since. Pendergraft had performed many abortions on Ocala residents in his Orlando clinic and believed he could profit by opening a clinic in Ocala.

Pendergraft's presence in Ocala sparked a lot of controversy. During a meeting of the Marion County Board of Commissioners in October 1997, Steve Klein, a resident of Ocala, proposed that the Board write a letter to Pendergraft asking him to reconsider opening his Ocala clinic. The Board unanimously supported Klein's proposal, and Larry Cretul, the Chairman of the Board, wrote and signed the letter and sent it to Pendergraft. The letter asked Pendergraft to reconsider his plans because of the controversy the clinic would bring to Ocala. Pendergraft received many other letters from concerned citizens of Marion County.

Pendergraft received the Board's letter and, after a few days, showed it to Michael Spielvogel, a business associate whose wife, Mary, worked for Pendergraft as an office administrator. In late October, Spielvogel called Cretul to discuss the possibility of Pendergraft withdrawing from Ocala if the County would purchase the clinic building for a good price.

Immediately after his discussion with Spielvogel, Cretul called the county sheriff's office and expressed some concern that he was being asked to pay for peace. The sheriff's office relayed Cretul's concern to FBI Special Agent Pamela Piersanti, and the FBI opened an investigation. As part of the investigation, the FBI recorded Cretul's subsequent conversations with Spielvogel. During one of the conversations, Spielvogel implied that Pendergraft would sell the clinic building for between $350,000 and $500,000.

On January 29, 1998, a bomb exploded at the New Woman All Women Health Care Center, an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, killing an off-duty police officer and injuring a chief nurse. That evening, Cretul and Spielvogel spoke by telephone. Following their conversation, Spielvogel called the FBI and reported that Cretul had threatened him. Specifically, Spielvogel reported that Cretul had said that the Alabama bombing was nothing compared to what would happen to the Ocala clinic. Because the FBI was monitoring Cretul's conversations with Spielvogel, it knew that Spielvogel's allegation was false. The FBI declined to investigate the alleged threat and told Spielvogel of its declination in late February.

On February 24, Pendergraft wrote identical letters to Cretul and several other Ocala citizens who had previously written letters to Pendergraft. In this letter, Pendergraft articulated his reasons for opening the Ocala clinic and acknowledged that he would perform abortions. At the end of his letter, he intimated that he would entertain other plans for the facility, including a sale of it, and asked potential offerors to contact Spielvogel.

At the FBI's request, Cretul called Pendergraft and finally got in touch with him on March 26, 1998. Cretul told Pendergraft that he was worried about the potential controversy and violence that the Ocala clinic would bring, but Pendergraft denied that he wanted or caused violence. Cretul asked Pendergraft how much money it would take to keep him out of Ocala. Pendergraft said that he would stay away three years for $550,000, five years for $750,000, and forever for $1,000,000. Cretul told Pendergraft that his offer felt like extortion, but Pendergraft denied any such intent and offered to cease negotiations. On April 8, the FBI told Cretul to call off negotiations, and thereafter the investigation of Pendergraft was closed.

In July 1998, the Ocala clinic opened amid much controversy. Protestors consistently blocked the driveway to the clinic and harassed those who entered the building. Pendergraft asked the City of Ocala and the Marion County Sheriff's Department if he could hire off-duty law enforcement officers to protect his clinic. Though such requests were routinely granted to other businesses, Pendergraft's request was denied.

Pendergraft and the Ocala Women's Center filed a federal lawsuit in December 1998, naming Marion County, the City of Ocala, and several individual protestors as defendants. It sought injunctive relief against Marion County that would permit Pendergraft to hire off-duty law enforcement officers.

Marion County retained Virgil Wright to defend the suit. Wright contacted Roy Lucas, Pendergraft's lawyer, and told Lucas that, since the Sheriff's Department was not controlled by Marion County, Marion County should not be a party to the suit. Lucas responded on March 15, 1999, with a letter stating that Cretul's threats, as reported by Spielvogel, violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248, and exposed the County to actual and punitive damages as well as litigation fees and expenses. Lucas threatened to file an amended complaint that would seek damages against the County and add Spielvogel, Spielvogel's wife, and the Ocala clinic administrator as plaintiffs. Attached to the letter were two unsigned affidavits, one by Spielvogel and one by Pendergraft.

Spielvogel's affidavit reported Cretul's threat and said that Pendergraft witnessed Spielvogel's reaction to the threat when it was made. Pendergraft's affidavit said that he believed Spielvogel's report that Cretul made threats because of Spielvogel's reaction when he was on the phone with Cretul.

When Wright received Lucas's letter, he contacted Cretul, who told Wright that the FBI taped the phone call during which Cretul was alleged to have made the threat. Wright agreed to assist the FBI in the investigation of Pendergraft and Spielvogel by holding a settlement conference with them. Wright and Lucas agreed to hold a settlement conference on March 22. In a letter confirming the time the conference was scheduled, Lucas said that he would bring a copy of a proposed amended complaint but that he might not need to file it, depending on the discussion.

On March 19, Pendergraft and Spielvogel filed a motion for partial summary judgment in their federal lawsuit. The motion sought to enjoin the protestors from harming clinic workers and to allow Pendergraft to hire off-duty officers. In support of the motion, Pendergraft and Spielvogel filed, among other things, the affidavits they sent to Wright regarding Cretul's threats. These affidavits were signed, dated, and notarized. Pendergraft and Spielvogel mailed a copy of this motion to Wright.

On March 22, Wright, Lucas, Spielvogel, and Pendergraft attended the settlement conference, and the FBI captured it on videotape. At the conference, Spielvogel again asserted that Cretul had threatened him, and Pendergraft claimed that he was present when Spielvogel received the threatening phone call. While Spielvogel expressed his desire for an immediate settlement, Pendergraft made it clear that he wanted to go to trial. Lucas and Pendergraft informed Wright that the lawsuit could bankrupt Marion County based on prior verdicts in similar cases. Wright told them he would report to Marion County and ask the county what it would like to do.

On April 12, Piersanti, the FBI agent, confronted Spielvogel with evidence that his allegations against Cretul were false, and she asked Spielvogel to cooperate in an investigation of Pendergraft. Spielvogel declined this offer and instead informed Pendergraft of the investigation.

On August 4, 1999, an amended complaint was filed in Pendergraft's lawsuit. It did not add Spielvogel or his wife as plaintiffs. It did not add Larry Cretul as a defendant. Instead of adding a claim for damages against Marion County, it dropped Marion County from the suit entirely....

To continue reading

Request your trial
132 cases
  • State v. Hynes
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • August 5, 2009
    ...a contrary conclusion, finding that a threat to sue, even if baseless, does not constitute extortion. See United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1207–08 (11th Cir.2002) ; First Pacific Bancorp, Inc. v. Bro, 847 F.2d 542, 547 (9th Cir.1988) ; I.S. Joseph Co., Inc. v. J. Lauritzen A/S, ......
  • United States v. Bazantes, No. 17-15721
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • October 26, 2020
    ...Sufficiency of the Indictment"[T]he sufficiency of an indictment is a legal question that we review de novo." United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1204 (11th Cir. 2002). In doing so, we consider only the facts alleged in the indictment. United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d 1257, 1263 (......
  • Rajaratnam v. Motley Rice, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 26, 2020
    ...would arguably turn many state-law actions for malicious prosecutions into federal RICO actions.") (quoting United States v. Pendergraft , 297 F.3d 1198, 1208 (11th Cir. 2002) ); Auburn Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Andrus , 9 F. Supp.2d 1291, 1298 (M.D. Ala. 1998) ("Numerous other courts have found t......
  • California Pharmacy Management v. Zenith Ins.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • November 5, 2009
    ..."where the sender knows the recipient will not be deceived by the falsehoods." Sosa, 437 F.3d at 941 (citing United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1209 (11th Cir. 2002)). To the extent that the objections submitted by Defendants had no "factual basis," CPM could not have been defraud......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Mail and wire fraud.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 42 No. 2, March 2005
    • March 22, 2005
    ...or even sent for a legitimate business purpose so long as it assists in carrying out the fraud."). But see United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1208 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that element was not satisfied when defendants used the mails to serve false affidavits because serving affi......
  • Mail and wire fraud.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 43 No. 2, March 2006
    • March 22, 2006
    ...or even sent for a legitimate business purpose so long as it assists in carrying out the fraud."). But see United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1208 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that element was not satisfied when defendants used the mails to serve false affidavits because serving affi......
  • Mail and wire fraud.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 No. 2, March 2007
    • March 22, 2007
    ...or even sent for a legitimate business purpose so long as it assists in carrying out the fraud."). But see United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1208 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that element was not satisfied when defendants used the mails to serve false affidavits because serving affi......
  • Mail and wire fraud.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2009
    • March 22, 2009
    ...or even sent for a legitimate business purpose so long as it assists in carrying out the fraud."). But see United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1208 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that element was not satisfied when defendants used the mails to serve false affidavits because serving affi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT