Michael Roussel used to be a Captain in the New Orleans Police Department. As you might expect, he was convicted of bribery.
After his conviction at trial, he went to sentencing. The judge determined that an enhancement for receiving more than one bribe was warranted. The Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Rousel, disagreed.
Mr. Roussel was friends with Joey Branch. As a result of Mr. Branch’s plea and cooperation agreement with the federal government, one suspects that they are no longer friends.
But back in 2008, Mr. Branch was an entrepreneur trying to place private security guards and Mr. Roussel was a police official with deep connections in a police force that has a tradition of officer’s moonlighting as private security guards.
There was synergy in their relationship.
Of course, the thing about success is that one naturally wants it to continue and build. What was once an exciting threshold quickly starts to look like a stale plateau. And so it was with Mr. Branch and Mr. Roussel. Soon, they were working together to try to get more business for Mr. Branch’s company. And that involved recorded calls to a confidential informant.
The informant worked for an energy company, and part of his job was to hire security guards during natural disasters. Roussel, Branch, and the informant agreed that uncertified, but falsely represented as certified, guards would be hired by the informant’s company in exchange for the three splitting the profits and a fake job for the informant’s wife.
Mr. Roussel ultimately gave $1,000 to the informant as earnest money of a sort. He and Mr. Branch were arrested soon after that – no other money was made.
Is Each Payment A Separate Bribe?
At sentencing, the district court determined that Mr. Roussel should receive a guidelines enhancement for being involved in multiple bribes.
Here’s what the district court said:
[w]hat was intended was a series of actions over a period of time. This contract was to continue for some period of time in the future . . . . It could not be anticipated exactly when they would occur, but whenever there would be a presidentially declared natural catastrophe or emergency and Entergy would be required to immediately beef up its security force, then . . . Gladius, would be called upon to supply security officers, . . . but in any event, it seems to me that that is very different from a one-time agreement to pay a bribe that is then just paid over in installments. This was going to be a series of actions. Effectively another bribe to be paid every time there was another event that occurred.
If you’re bribing a public official and tell him that you’re going to give him, say $10,000 for selecting your bid for a federal contract, and you pay him in two installments of $5,000, is that one bribe or two? One can see how this could be a hard question.
Here, though, the Fifth Circuit thought it wasn’t that tricky – in counting the number of bribes, you don’t look at all the stuff that could have happened if the full deal went through. Instead, you look at what actually happened.
Or, as the court of appeals said
Simply put, the government proved the payment of only one bribe–the $1,000 “good faith” money to Dabdoub. The rest was all speculative.
Mr. Roussel is going back for resentencing.