United States v. Verrusio

Decision Date12 August 2014
Docket NumberNo. 11–3080.,11–3080.
Citation762 F.3d 1
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Fraser VERRUSIO, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:09–cr–00064–1).

Richard P. Sobiecki argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, Rosanna M. Taormina, Assistant Federal Public Defender, and Vernon A.A. Cassin III.

Kirby A. Heller, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief were Lanny A. Breuer, then Assistant Attorney General, and John D. Buretta, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Michael A. Rotker, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an appearance.

Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, William Pittard, Deputy General Counsel, Christine M. Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel, and Todd B. Tatelman, Mary Beth Walker, and Eleni M. Roumel, Assistant Counsel, were on the brief for amicus curiae Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in support of appellee.

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GARLAND.

GARLAND, Chief Judge:

Fraser Verrusio, the former policy director of the House Transportation Committee, was convicted on three counts relating to his receipt of illegal gratuities from Jack Abramoff's lobbying group. On appeal, Verrusio argues that his indictment omitted an essential element of the charges against him, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions,and that the district court erred in excluding a defense exhibit and quashing a defense subpoena. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I

Verrusio's convictions arose out of his work as policy director for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives. As policy director, he advised Chairman Don Young, as well as the Committee as a whole, regarding legislative strategies and policy. See, e.g., Supp.App. 22 (Blackann Test.); id. at 46 (Harless Test.).1 The House Transportation Committee had jurisdiction over legislation authorizing federal surface transportation funding, which required renewal every six years. Because the federal highway act in force in 2003—known as the Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty–First Century (TEA–21)—was set to lapse at the end of that year, the Committee was especially focused on enacting the next federal highway bill.

A

Companies and their lobbyists were also focused on the new highway bill. One of those companies was United Rentals, a nationwide construction equipment company. United Rentals hired lobbyists from Jack Abramoff's group at the Greenberg Traurig law firm to advance its legislative agenda.2 The lobbyists were Todd Boulanger and James Hirni.3 Todd Ehrlich was their primary contact at United Rentals.

Because its business was renting construction equipment, United Rentals wanted language in the federal highway bill that would provide incentives for state transportation departments to contract with builders that rented rather than bought such equipment. It also wanted language that would require liability insurance at a level that few companies other than United Rentals had. In addition, it wanted language encouraging the use of “intelligent” transportation systems like the ones United Rentals had to offer. App. 187 (Boulanger Test.). Together, Boulanger, Hirni, and Ehrlich devised a plan to insert three amendments into the highway bill, all of which were intended to give United Rentals a competitive advantage. Id. Boulanger, Hirni, and Ehrlich all testified at Verrusio's trial.

So, too, did Trevor Blackann. In 2003, Blackann was a legislative assistant to Senator Kit Bond, who, at the time, chaired the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. The Subcommittee had primary responsibility for drafting the Senate version of the new federal highway bill. As a result, Blackann was in a position to be helpful in adding United Rentals' desired amendments to the bill. See id. at 191, 196–97 (Boulanger Test.).

Boulanger and Hirni discussed United Rentals' “package of proposals” for legislation with Blackann. App. 220 (Blackann Test.). That discussion included details of the three specific amendments the company wanted. According to Blackann, the amendments were aimed at “providing preferential treatment in federal government contracting for renting or leasing equipment as opposed to purchasing equipment”; a “minimum insurance requirement”; and a “work zone safety piece,” including intelligent transportation systems. Id.

After Blackann discussed United Rentals' desired legislative package with lobbyists Boulanger and Hirni, he then discussed it with Verrusio. He did so, he testified, because he knew from the lobbyists “that they were also working with Mr. Verrusio on the same package of amendments.” Id. Blackann said that he and Verrusio anticipated opposition to United Rentals' desired amendments from companies that sold construction equipment, and that they “discussed the idea of waiting till the last possible minute legislatively to insert the provisions.” Id. at 221. Blackann termed this the “airmail strategy.” Id. According to Blackann, Verrusio was adamant that this was the route that United Rentals should take. Id. Blackann advised lobbyists Boulanger and Hirni that he and Verrusio “were both in support of [the airmail] strategy.” Id.

In October 2003, after the above-described discussions had taken place, United Rentals' Ehrlich told lobbyist Boulanger that he had tickets to the first game of the 2003 World Series, and he asked “if there were any government officials that [United Rentals] would be interested in taking that could be helpful” in advancing its legislative agenda. App. 188 (Boulanger Test.). Ehrlich and Boulanger, in conjunction with Hirni, decided to invite Blackann and Verrusio. According to Boulanger, they decided to invite them because they were in positions to be helpful ... [s]pecifically” with [t]he United Rentals' amendments that we were seeking to include in the highway bill.” Supp.App. 19–20 (Boulanger Test.). Boulanger knew that Verrusio “was close to the chairman” of the House Transportation Committee, and he hoped “to influence” Verrusio “to do some things for our clients.” App. 188 (Boulanger Test.); Supp.App. 21 (same). At trial, Hirni similarly admitted that he had used the “tickets in [an] attempt to influence the Congressional staff for legislation.” Supp.App. 85.

As planned, Hirni invited Blackann and Verrusio to the World Series game and made clear that United Rentals would cover the costs.App. 251–52 (Hirni Test.). Both men accepted the invitation. Id. at 250–51. Hirni and Blackann flew to New York together and met Ehrlich there. Over drinks, Blackann described the airmail strategy that he, Verrusio, and the two lobbyists had agreed was “the best course of action.” Supp.App. 26 (Blackann Test.). Shortly thereafter, Verrusio joined them for dinner. According to Hirni, the four men “talked a lot about United Rentals” and “got into a conversation about concepts and ideas United Rentals had for federal legislation.” Id. at 64 (Hirni Test.). Verrusio was “the senior guy at the table,” Blackann testified, and was “leading the conversation.” Id. at 27. Verrusio “walked them through” the airmail strategy, indicating that it had “the best chance for ultimate success.” Id. Ehrlich paid for the dinner and drinks. Id. at 65–66 (Hirni Test.).

On the way to Yankee Stadium, the chauffeured car carrying the four men stopped at a convenience store, where Hirni bought several small bottles of liquor for the group. The men then went on to the game. On their way out of the stadium, Verrusio signaled to Hirni that he and Blackann wanted souvenir jerseys. Hirni paid for them with his corporate credit card. Id. at 27, 29 (Blackann Test.); id. at 70 (Hirni Test.).

After leaving the stadium, the group went to a strip club called Privilege. Hirni paid the cover charge and the cost of drinks, while Ehrlich paid for several lap dances. Hirni also bought Verrusio and Blackann t-shirts from the club. When the group left, they stopped for pizza before returning to their hotel. The next morning, Hirni paid the hotel expenses, and Verrusio, Blackann, and Hirni took a car to the airport and flew to Washington, D.C. Id. at 71–74, 76–77 (Hirni Test.); see App. 225 (stipulated facts).

At trial, the parties stipulated to the value of what Verrusio received during the New York trip: The round-trip plane ticket cost $228.50; his hotel and room service costs were $301.27; the face value of the World Series ticket was $110; the World Series jersey cost $130; and Verrusio's pro rata share of the costs for other transportation, dinner, drinks, and the strip club was $490. The total cost of Verrusio's trip, paid by United Rentals, was $1,259.77. See App. 225; Verrusio Br. 53–54.

Three days after the trip, Hirni forwarded Verrusio an email from Boulanger that “listed a series of legislative items and some legislative text that United Rentals was now pushing,” and asked whether Verrusio had time to discuss it. Supp.App. 79–80 (Hirni Test.). Verrusio responded that the language “needs a lot more work for anyone to be able to help with progress.” App. 262–63 (Hirni Test.).

Because the Senate moved more quickly on the federal highway bill than the House, Blackann began working on United Rentals' agenda before Verrusio did. Blackann notified Verrusio that his office was not going to follow the airmail strategy of waiting until the last moment, but was instead going “to actually work to get something in the Senate version of the bill.” Supp.App. 34 (Blackann...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • United States v. Stone
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 1, 2019
    ...2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995). "A statement ‘need not actually influence an agency in order to be material.’ " United States v. Verrusio , 762 F.3d 1, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2014), quoting United States v. Moore , 612 F.3d 698, 701 (D.C. Cir. 2010). So defendant is incorrect as matter of law when he ......
  • United States v. Harmon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 24, 2020
    ...the same offense." Hamling v. United States , 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) ; see also United States v. Verrusio , 762 F.3d 1, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ("[T]o be sufficient, an indictment need only inform the defendant of the precise offense of which he is accused so tha......
  • United States v. Apodaca
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 17, 2017
    ...validity of an indictment ‘is not a question of whether it could have been more definite and certain.’ " United States v. Verrusio , 762 F.3d 1, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Debrow , 346 U.S. 374, 378, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92 (1953) ). "Rather, to be sufficient, an indict......
  • United States v. Gray
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • January 26, 2023
    ... ... that he may prepare his defense and plead double jeopardy in ... any further prosecution for the same offense.” ... United States v. Williamson , 903 F.3d 124, 130 (D.C ... Cir. 2018), quoting United States v. Verrusio , 762 ... F.3d 1, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2014); see United States v ... Resendiz-Ponce , 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007). “It is ... generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense ... in the words of the statute itself, as long as ‘those ... words of themselves ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...Cir. 2010) (Compulsory Process not violated because defendant did not show witnesses’ testimony material and favorable); U.S. v. Verrusio, 762 F.3d 1, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Compulsory Process not violated because defendant failed to establish testimony’s importance). But see, e.g. , Bowling ......
  • PUBLIC CORRUPTION
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...intent element.”). 11. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 404–05 (1999); see also United States v. Verrusio, 762 F.3d 1, 15–17 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (f‌inding that an off‌icial’s acceptance of gifts and services as a reward for future legislative assistance constitutes i......
  • Public Corruption
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...bribery and illegal gratuities] is [bribery’s] intent element.”). 10. Sun-Diamond , 526 U.S. at 404–05; see also United States v. Verrusio, 762 F.3d 1, 15–17 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (f‌inding an off‌icial’s acceptance of gifts and services as a reward for future legislative assistance constitutes ......
  • Public Corruption
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...and illegal gratuities] is [bribery’s] intent element.”). 10. Sun-Diamond , 526 U.S. at 404–05 ; see also United States v. Verrusio, 762 F.3d 1, 15–17 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (f‌inding that an off‌icial’s acceptance of gifts and services as a reward for future legislative assistance constitutes il......

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