US v. Vona
| Decision Date | 14 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-CR-099A.,93-CR-099A. |
| Citation | 842 F. Supp. 1534 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. James VONA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Patrick H. Nemoyer, U.S. Atty., John E. Rogowski, U.S. Atty., for plaintiff.
Joel E. Daniels, Buffalo, NY, for defendant.
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on March 23, 1993. On August 27, 1993, defendant filed a motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment for failure to establish jurisdictional value.
On November 24, 1993, Magistrate Judge Heckman filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant's motion be granted.
This Court, having carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Heckman's Report and Recommendation, and no objections having been timely filed, it is hereby
ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Heckman's Report and Recommendation, defendant's motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant filed a motion dated August 26, 1993 for a bill of particulars and other discovery material. This motion has been argued before the court and resolved to the satisfaction of both the government and the defendant.
Defendant has moved for a severance of counts and separate trials. This motion is to be handled by the trial judge, Hon. Richard J. Arcara.
The only remaining issue before this court is the defendant's motion to dismiss Count 1 for failure to establish jurisdictional value. This motion has been fully briefed, and argument was heard on November 3, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that defendant's motion be granted.
Count 1 charges the defendant with a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2). Specifically, James Vona is charged with giving $1,500 to Mark Narowski, an alderman of the City of North Tonawanda, with intent to influence Narowski in connection with a transaction "involving a thing of value of $5,000 or more, that is, a reduction in the City water and sewer bill issued to the defendant James Vona, by offering to forgive, in fact forgiving a $1,500 loan which loan was made to Narowski in or about December of 1990."
18 U.S.C. § 666 provides in pertinent part as follows:
The defendant asserts that the bribe alleged in Count 1 did not involve a transaction having a value of $5,000 or more. It is undisputed that the transaction in question involved a water bill for $6,643 which was reduced to the amount of $2,924.25, a reduction of approximately $3,700. According to the government this reduction was obtained in exchange for defendant's agreement to forgive a $1,500 debt owed by Narowski to defendant. Defendant argues that the value of this transaction was the amount by which the bill was reduced, i.e. $3,718.25, substantially less than the minimum $5,000 jurisdictional amount, and therefore the indictment must be dismissed. The government, in contrast, takes the position that the appropriate figure to consider is the original value of the water bill, which was $6,643.
Both parties agree that there are no cases on this point. Defendant notes that the other cases addressing the issue of "value" have only held that the amount of the bribe itself does not have to be $5,000 or more. United States v. Duvall, 846 F.2d 966, 976 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Little, 687 F.Supp. 1042 (N.D.Miss.1988). The parties also agree that the legislative history is silent on this issue.
Defense counsel cites United States v. Mongelli, 794 F.Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y.1992). In that case, the defendants were state officials...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Foley
...both concluded that such bribes need not involve something worth $5,000 to the recipient of the federal money. See United States v. Vona, 842 F.Supp. 1534, 1536 (W.D.N.Y.1994) (concluding that "the statute does not require ... the loss to the victim [the state government] to be $5,000 or mo......
-
U.S.A. v. Zwick
...is not required "to show that the thing that held value of over $5,000 held that value for" the entity); United States v. Vona, 842 F. Supp. 1534, 1536 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) (finding that the Act does not require that the defendant gain $5,000 or that the victim lose $5,000, but that "as long as ......
-
United States v. Ali
...best position to rule on the issues presented. See U.S. v. Hennings, No. 95-CR-0010A, 1997 WL 714250 (W.D.N.Y. 1997); U.S. v. Vona, 842 F. Supp. 1534 (W.D.N.Y. 1994).Audibility Defendant Ali seeks an audibility hearing regarding any recordings the Government intends to use at trial. Ali cur......
-
US v. Apple
...addressed Apple's argument from a different perspective. See United States v. Foley, 73 F.3d 484 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Vona, 842 F.Supp. 1534 (W.D.N.Y.1994); Mongelli, 794 F.Supp. at 530. As noted, the statute requires that the agency "business" that was "connected" to the bribe "......