United States v. Pratt, Criminal Case No. ELH-12-401
| Decision Date | 24 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Case No. ELH-12-401 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SUSAN A. PRATT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SUSAN A. PRATT
Criminal Case No. ELH-12-401
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Date: January 24, 2013
By way of a Second Superseding Indictment (ECF 53), the government has charged Susan A. Pratt with multiple counts of unlawful receipt by a public official of items "of value" in connection with official acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) (the "gratuity" counts), and receipt of illegal supplementation of salary from a non-governmental source, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 209(a) (the "salary supplementation" counts). Ms. Pratt filed a "Motion to Dismiss Indictment" ("First Motion to Dismiss") (ECF 14), seeking dismissal of the gratuity counts (Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Seven, and Nine), and a "Motion to Dismiss Counts Four, Six, Eight, and Ten of the Superseding Indictment" ("Second Motion to Dismiss") (ECF 31), with respect to the salary supplementation counts (collectively, the "Motions to Dismiss").1 Ms. Pratt also filed three motions for bills of particulars, see ECF 15, 30, 50, some of which were decided by prior orders of the Court or rendered moot by further disclosures from the government. And, Ms. Pratt filed a "Motion to Suppress Statements" (ECF 16), on the basis of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and its progeny.
Page 2
On January 10, 2013, I held a hearing to address the various defense motions. Thereafter, I denied defendant's suppression motion and her third motion for bill of particulars, for reasons stated on the record, and took the Motions to Dismiss under advisement. See ECF 59. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the Motions to Dismiss.
At all relevant times, Ms. Pratt was employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), an agency of the United States Department of Justice. In particular, Ms. Pratt was a Supervisory Traffic Management Specialist in the Relocation Services Section ("Relocation Services") of the BOP. Relocation Services is responsible for coordinating moving services and moving expenses for BOP employees when they are transferred from one duty station to another. As Supervisory Traffic Management Specialist, Ms. Pratt was responsible for various aspects of the selection, reimbursement, and evaluation of private carriers employed by Relocation Services to transport the household goods of relocating BOP employees.
The government alleges that, on several occasions, Ms. Pratt accepted items of value from certain private moving carriers who transacted business with Relocation Services, including free moving services for herself and for a friend; spa services; a gift certificate for spa services; and lunch at a restaurant. According to the government, Ms. Pratt's conduct violated the criminal statutes cited above.
As to the gratuity counts, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) prohibits a federal public official from "directly or indirectly demand[ing], seek[ing], receiv[ing], accept[ing], or agree[ing] to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person." (Emphasis added). The term "official act" is defined in
Page 3
18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3), as follows: "[T]he term 'official act' means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit." See United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 351-58 (4th Cir.) (holding that "official acts" encompass all activities within the range of one's official duties, although not every act taken in one's official capacity) (citing, inter alia, United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398 (1999); United States v. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223 (1914); and Valdes v. United States, 475 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2007)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 648 (2012). Each gratuity count carries a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment.
As to the salary supplementation counts, the government charges Ms. Pratt with the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 209(a), which prohibits a federal officer or employee, with exceptions not applicable here, from "receiv[ing] any salary, or contribution to or supplementation of salary, as compensation for [her] services as [a federal officer or employee], from any source other than the Government of the United States . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 216(a), a violation of the salary supplementation statute is a misdemeanor, subject to imprisonment for no more than one year, unless the violation is performed "willfully," in which case it is a felony, subject to imprisonment for up to five years. In this case, each of the salary supplementation counts alleges a willful violation.
Over the course of pretrial proceedings, the government has refined its charging strategy. In the original Indictment (ECF 1), the government charged Ms. Pratt with six counts under the gratuity statute, without any salary supplementation charges. In a Superseding Indictment (ECF 21), the government added four counts under the salary supplementation statute, bringing the
Page 4
total number of counts to ten. In the Second Superseding Indictment (ECF 53), which is the operative charging document, the government reasserted the same ten counts, buttressed with additional factual allegations.2
The Motions to Dismiss filed by Ms. Pratt challenge the facial sufficiency of the Indictment. A "challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment . . . is ordinarily limited to the allegations contained in the indictment." United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405, 415 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the facts set forth in this Background section are drawn from the allegations of the Indictment, unless otherwise noted.
The Indictment contains several allegations concerning Ms. Pratt's job responsibilities as they related to the companies employed to move the household belongings of BOP employees. According to the Indictment, as Supervisory Traffic Management Specialist, one of Ms. Pratt's responsibilities was to prepare a "Household Goods Carrier Selection Form" ("Carrier Selection Form") for each relocating BOP employee. Indictment ¶ 4. She did so by "enter[ing] the origin, destination, date, and estimated household goods weight" applicable to the planned move into an "online system" called the "Transportation Management Services Solution" ("TMSS"), maintained by the United States General Services Administration ("GSA"), which provides an automated means of matching private carriers with a particular federal employee's move. Based on the origin, destination, date, and estimated household goods weight for a particular move, the TMSS system produces a list, "ranked by pricing and service score," of all of the "carriers that [a]re qualified to provide the move." Id.
Page 5
The Indictment alleges that, for a given BOP employee's move, Ms. Pratt would select up to five carriers from the ranked TMSS list to be included on the Carrier Selection Form; the Carrier Selection Form would then be provided to the relocating BOP employee, who ordinarily would choose his or her carrier from the list provided by Ms. Pratt.3 Id. According to the Indictment, each time Ms. Pratt "placed a carrier on the Carrier Selection Form, she helped that carrier." Id. Moreover, the Indictment alleges that, on some occasions, Ms. Pratt "included on the Carrier Selection Form not only the national carrier listed on the TMSS system, but also a company which served as the local agent for the carrier." Id. ¶ 5. The local agents "did not appear on the TMSS print out." Id. Thus, the government maintains that each time Ms. Pratt added the name of a local agent onto the Carrier Selection Form, her "inclusion of the local agent company helped the local agent company." Id.
The BOP pays each carrier "for the total cost of the move within the terms of the GSA-carrier contract." Id. at 6. In this regard, Ms. Pratt's responsibilities included reviewing and approving the bill of lading for each move, as well as reviewing and approving any "extra costs" or "subsequent amendments to the bills of lading." Id. In addition, Ms. Pratt was required to field "inquiries from carriers who had performed moves for relocating BOP employees but whose invoices had not yet been paid." Id. ¶ 8. "When she assisted in resolving these unpaid invoices," according to the Indictment, Ms. Pratt "helped the carrier." Id.
Page 6
In addition, Ms. Pratt was responsible for evaluating the carrier for each move. Id. ¶ 7. She did so by grading the carrier on GSA Form 3080, the "Household Goods Carrier Evaluation Report" ("Form 3080"). Id. The relocating BOP employee would also grade the carrier on the Form 3080. Id. Ms. Pratt would then transmit the completed Form 3080 to GSA. Id. GSA uses "the Form 3080 scores in ranking carriers and determining which carriers [a]re eligible to provide household good moves for government employees." Id. The Indictment also alleges that, on some occasions, Ms. Pratt provided "recommendation letters to carriers who were pursuing work with other government agencies." Id.
The Indictment identifies six specific occasions when Ms. Pratt allegedly received or solicited something of value from a carrier or a carrier's agent and employees. These six occasions form the basis of the ten counts. Although...
To continue reading
Request your trial