United States v. Jefferson

Decision Date01 May 2014
Docket NumberNo. 12–60661.,12–60661.
Citation751 F.3d 314
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Ann JEFFERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Robert Henry Norman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Oxford, MS, Susan Spears Bradley, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Oxford, MS, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Karl E. Pulley, Law Office of Karl E. Pulley, Jonathan E. Richardson, Nashville, TN, for DefendantAppellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:

Following a jury trial, defendant Ann Jefferson was convicted of embezzling government funds, witness tampering, and several other offenses related to her work at a Mississippi housing authority. Jefferson appeals her conviction and sentence of thirty-two months imprisonment, and raises claims regarding: (1) the denial of her motion for a mistrial following the admission into evidence of a tape-recorded conversation at trial; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence in support of each of her convictions; (3) the location of her trial; and (4) the reasonableness of her sentence. We AFFIRM.

I.

The South Delta Regional Housing Authority (“SDRHA”) was created to provide affordable housing to low-income families in the Mississippi Delta, one of the poorest regions in the nation.1 SDRHA purchases homes and then resells or rents those homes to low-income individuals at below-market rates. It receives federal funds from the United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”) 2 and is governed by a Board of Commissioners and an Executive Director. Starting in 2006, Jefferson worked as Executive Director of SDRHA and in that capacity was responsible for its HUD and non-HUD programs.

On May 28, 2009, Jefferson asked SDRHA employee Nikki Wuestenhoefer to compile a report showing the amounts SDRHA's non-HUD tenants were paying in monthly rent. After Wuestenhoefer presented the report to Jefferson the next day on May 29, Jefferson called a meeting (“the May 29 meeting”) and announced that SDRHA would substantially raise its rental rates, more than doubling and in one instance quadrupling them.3

Thereafter, in a separate suit from this appeal, over 200 SDRHA tenants filed suit in the Northern District of Mississippi asking the court to enjoin the rate increases. The court subsequently conducted a preliminary injunction hearing, during which Jefferson testified that SDRHA was in financial chaos when she took over and that without the rate increases SDRHA's housing program would fail due to lack of funds. Jefferson further stated that she and her staff had reviewed the tenants' files and verified that they could afford the rate increases based on the income information in their files. Based on Jefferson's testimony, the Northern District of Mississippi denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and permitted the rate increases to take effect. Roughly sixty families lost their homes around Christmastime as a result.

A subsequent investigation into the rent increases revealed that SDRHA's staff had not reviewed the tenants' files to make sure that they could pay the new rates. SDRHA's property manager, Angela Brady, had attended the May 29 meeting and said that those present were in shock when they heard Jefferson announce the new rates and did not know where they had come from. Regarding SDRHA's financial situation, minutes from the meetings of SDRHA's Board of Commissioners showed that Jefferson repeatedly assured the Board that SDRHA was financially stable, stating at one point that SDRHA had “a couple of million-dollar CDs in the bank to show that the agency is definitely financially stable.” Jefferson subsequently bragged to Wuestenhoefer about “lying to the court and “would often boast about playing the judge and jury,” in reference to the preliminary injunction hearing.

In 2010, the year following the rent increases, Jefferson received $195,399 in compensation. SDRHA also agreed to allow Jefferson to purchase one of its homes, located at 301 Huddleston Street in Leland, Mississippi (the “Huddleston property”), for $62,500. SDRHA loaned Jefferson the money to purchase the Huddleston property, which included $20,000 that was deposited directly into Jefferson's bank account for use in renovating the property to suit her needs.

According to Brady, Jefferson never used the $20,000 to renovate the Huddleston property but instead diverted SDRHA funds to lavishly remodel the property. Brady saw a number of requisition and purchase orders that, while purporting to permit renovations at various SDRHA properties, actually reflected renovations at the Huddleston property. For example, SDRHA paid $4,200 for the renovation of a garage at the Huddleston property; however, the invoice incorrectly reflected that the work was performed at a different address, which never had a garage.

Brady identified other incorrectly invoiced renovations to the Huddleston property, including the installation of a patio, Jacuzzi tub, and appliances such as a refrigerator, range, dishwasher, and a washer and dryer. The receipts and requisition orders for several renovations bore Jefferson's signature and on others the address was blacked out. Dinnial Love, SDRHA's maintenance supervisor, purchased and installed a number of items at the Huddleston property, which he described as “high dollar” and more expensive than those typically installed in SDRHA homes. SDRHA also paid $4,775 for cabinets, $7,200 for roofing, $7,500 for an air-conditioning unit, and $5,000 for plumbing work at the Huddleston property.

Jefferson's co-defendant, Jimmy Johnson, contracted with SDRHA to remove concrete debris and to perform dirt work at one of SDRHA's properties. He performed that work, for which SDRHA paid him $30,000. Thereafter, however, Johnson entered into another $10,000 contract with SDRHA to perform the same work, i.e., work that had already been completed. On that $10,000 contract, SDRHA paid Johnson an initial draw of $5,500, which he later admitted was actually for work he performed at Jefferson's Huddleston property. The remaining $4,500 was part of a check that Brady and Johnson cashed together at a pawn shop and then returned to Jefferson. Upon receiving the $4,500, Jefferson said that Johnson owed her the other $5,500.

The FBI subsequently initiated an investigation into Jefferson's conduct and sought the cooperation of SDRHA employees Brady and Wuestenhoefer, and SDRHA tenant Melanie Gentry. According to Brady, the content of her potential responses to the FBI were a “daily conversation” with Jefferson. Jefferson told her not to be truthful and their discussions included Jefferson “coaching and telling [Brady] what to say ... telling [her] what not to say.” In a discussion regarding Brady's upcoming appearance before the grand jury, Jefferson was tape-recorded telling Brady that the $4,500 returned to her on the $10,000 Johnson contract would never come up because only the three of them knew about it. Jefferson told Brady that she should say “no,” if they asked her about going to Johnson's house and that they all needed to have the same story.

Jefferson also made various statements to SDRHA employees indicating that anyone who cooperated with the FBI's investigation would be fired and that she was going to “clean house” after the FBI left. Upon learning that Wuestenhoefer was cooperating with the FBI, Jefferson was described as “furious and she said that she was going to get her” and “fire her a—.” Jefferson took job duties away from Wuestenhoefer and made it difficult for her to complete her work by limiting her access to computer systems and by requiring an escort to accompany her in certain areas of the building, including the restroom. Jefferson taunted Wuestenhoefer, instructed other employees not to talk to her, called her a “snitch” and made other derogatory comments on a daily basis, was recorded saying we are going to ... blame everything on [Wuestenhoefer],” and told others that she was going to fire Wuestenhoefer after the conclusion of the FBI investigation. The Board of Commissioners eventually terminated Wuestenhoefer.

Brady experienced similar treatment, even though she had previously worked closely with Jefferson. After it became known that Brady was cooperating with the FBI, Jefferson took Brady's keys and phone, had her locked out of SDRHA computer systems and moved to a separate office, and instructed other employees not to talk to her. The effect of these actions left Brady unable to perform her work, and Brady subsequently experienced problems with too much money being deducted from her paychecks.

Gentry was a third-generation SDRHA tenant. Following the rate increases Jefferson imposed, Gentry's monthly rent increased from $250 to $520. Wuestenhoefer, who recognized that Gentry could not afford the increased payments, allowed her to continue paying $300 a month rather than $520. Gentry did so, giving her September 2010 rent payment to Wuestenhoefer in the form of a money order. Thereafter, Jefferson contacted Gentry and informed her that the money order was missing, that no September rent payment had posted, and that she would have to pay $1,650 to resolve her account. Jefferson further informed Gentry that Wuestenhoefer must have taken the money order and that she would wipe Gentry's $1,650 delinquent account clean if she would write a letter stating that Wuestenhoefer did so. Under pressure of losing her home, Gentry eventually signed a letter to that effect. With her account written off, Gentry was able to purchase her home from SDRHA, which she did.

A month after closing on her home, Gentry met with several members of the Board of Commissioners. She explained that Jefferson had asked her to accuse Wuestenhoefer and that she...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • United States v. Camick
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 31 July 2015
    ...Stoker, 706 F.3d at 646 ; the lack of a justifiable reason for defendant's adverse actions against a witness, United States v. Jefferson, 751 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Cir.2014) ; evidence showing the defendant was aware the witness had provided information to the prosecution, had spoken with othe......
  • United States v. McHugh
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 2 May 2022
    ... ... Kumar, No. 04-CR-846 (ILG), ... 2006 WL 6589865, at *2-4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2006) ... [ 6 ] See, e.g., United States v ... Martinez, 862 F.3d 223, 238 (2d Cir. 2017), vacated ... on other grounds, 139 S.Ct. 2772 (2019); United ... States v. Jefferson, 751 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Cir. 2014); ... United States v. Ahrensfield, 698 F.3d 1310, 1324-26 ... (10th Cir. 2012); United States v. Townsend, 630 ... F.3d 1003, 1014-15 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v ... Phillips, 583 F.3d 1261, 1265 (10th Cir. 2009); ... ...
  • United States ex rel. Wuestenhoefer v. Jefferson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • 16 January 2015
  • United States v. Petruk
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 23 March 2015
    ... ... See United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 78081 (8th Cir.2007) (affirming defendant's conviction under 1512(c)(2) for requesting that individuals falsely claim ownership of a firearm). Other circuits have affirmed similar convictions under 1512(c)(2). See United States v. Jefferson, 751 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Cir.2014) (defendant made intentional false statements to the court during a preliminary injunction hearing); Carson, 560 F.3d at 584 (defendant made false statements to a grand jury); United States v. Mintmire, 507 F.3d 1273, 1290 (11th Cir.2007) (defendant attempted ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 August 2022
    ...jury despite trial news coverage because court instituted “adequate precautions” against “outside inf‌luences”); U.S. v. Jefferson, 751 F.3d 314, 322 (5th Cir. 2014) (no abuse of discretion to refuse to sequester jury despite negative media because media not in trial location and no evidenc......

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