green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
44.4 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 ·
…congress seeks to preserve the integrity of federal funds by assuring the integrity of the organizations or agencies that receive them.
at p. 578
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 ·
…he relevant statutory language plain and unambiguous.
at p. 576
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Basim Omar Sabri
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
congress seeks to preserve the integrity of federal funds by assuring the integrity of the organizations or agencies that receive them.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Basim Omar Sabri
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
congress seeks to preserve the integrity of federal funds by assuring the integrity of the organizations or agencies that receive them.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee
(9×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
he amended version of section 666 reinforces our interpretation.... ts legislative history indicates that the relevant changes were technical' ones.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Lipscomb
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he amended version of section 666 reinforces our interpretation. . . . ts legislative history indicates that the relevant changes were 'technical' ones.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Genova
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
it is sufficient that congress seeks to preserve the integrity of federal funds by assuring the integrity of the organizations or agencies that receive them
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Phillips
(9×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
courts in applying criminal laws generally must follow the plain and unambiguous meaning of the statutory language. only the most extraordinary showing of contrary intentions in the legislative history will justify departure from that language.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hill
United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 (1988); United States v. Stephenson, 887 F.2d 57, 59 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1086 (1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hill
United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 (1988); United States v. Stephenson, 887 F.2d 57, 59 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1086 (1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Herman
Our review of the record does not show that Michael’s statement “permeate[d] the record” or was even “a crucial part of the government’s case.” Portillo, 969 F.3d at 177 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 579 (5th Cir. 1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Portillo
Our own review of the closing arguments confirms that the government did not heavily rely upon the Romo brothers’ confessions, making it difficult for us to conclude that the inadmissible evidence “permeate[d] the record.” United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 579 (5th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Garrido
The purpose of the statute is to “protect federal funds by preserving the integrity of the entities that receive the federal funds.” United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459, 463 (9th Cir.1991) (citing United States v. West-moreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir.1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Turner
United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir.1988). 26 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ollison
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Merits Section 666 “prohibits theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds.” 1 United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hildenbrand
This court has noted that “the extent of the federal government’s assistance programs will bring many organizations and agencies within the statute’s scope,” but cautioned that “the statute limits its reach to entities that receive a substantial amount of federal funds.” United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mann
(2×)
United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 581 (5th Cir.1988). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Genova
See also Ferrara, 990 F.Supp. at 151 ; United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 577 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that "[i]t is sufficient that Congress seeks to preserve the integrity of federal funds by assuring the integrity of the organizations or agencies that receive them”). 8 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Zwick
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See also Bonito, 57 F.3d at 172 (citing legislative history noted by Bonito and ultimately rejecting Bonito's arguments); Valentine, 63 F.3d at 463 (reviewing legislative history to determine whether it supported Valentine's argument); Westmoreland, 841 F.2d at 576-577 (reviewing legislative history " `as an additional tool of analysis' with the recognition that our inquiry will result in `a limitation on the plain meaning of the statutory language' only under exceptional circumstances") (quoting Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 75 (1984)); Frega, 933 F. Supp. at 1542-1543 (reviewing legi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES of America v. James J. ZWICK, Appellant
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See also Bonito, 57 F.3d at 172 (citing legislative history noted by Bonito and ultimately rejecting Bonito’s arguments); Valentine, 63 F.3d at 463 (reviewing legislative history to determine whether it supported Valentine’s argument); Westmoreland, 841 F.2d at 576-77 (reviewing legislative history " ‘as an additional tool of analysis' with the recognition that our inquiry will result in 'a limitation on the plain meaning of the statutory language’ only under exceptional circumstances”) (quoting Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 75 , 105 S.Ct. 479 , 83 L.Ed.2d 472 (1984)); Frega,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States of America, Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Joseph J. Santopietro Paul R. Vitarelli, Perry A. Pisciotti
In rejecting Salinas’s contention, the Fifth Circuit, relying on its prior decision in United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 576 (5th Cir.1988), noted that the $5,000 anything-of-value element of the statute did not require either that a federally funded transaction itself involve $5,000 or that the affected transaction involve $5,000 of federal funds.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McCormack
See also United States v. Valentine, 63 F.3d 459, 461-62 (6th Cir.1995)(transactions were $8,363 misappropriated from copying fees and $7,000 of lost wages when employee labor was misappropriated for personal use); United States v. Wyncoop, 11 F.3d 119, 120 (9th Cir.l993)(transaction was $65,000 in federal student loans); United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459, 463 (9th Cir.1991)(transaction was stair cleaning project worth $5,790); United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 575 (5th Cir.l988)(transactions were purchases of goods worth, $14,482.92).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ferrara
No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 369 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3510.' In an effort to correct those problems, Congress sought “to preserve the integrity of federal funds by assuring the integrity of the organizations or agencies that receive them.” United States v.. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Forste
To accomplish its goal, Congress ‘cast a broad net to encompass local officials who may administer federal funds, regardless of whether they actually do.’ ” United States v. Marmolejo, 89 F.3d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir.1996) 0quoting United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 576 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988)), cert, granted in part, — U.S. ---, 117 S.Ct. 1079 , 137 L.Ed.2d 214 (1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Daniel M. Paradies, the Paradies Shops, Inc., Paradies Midfield Corporation, Ira Jackson
Westmoreland, 841 F.2d at 576 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Paradies
Westmoreland, 841 F.2d at 576 (emphasis added).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brigido Marmolejo, Jr. And Mario Salinas
(8×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 576 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Frega
See, e.g., United States v. Valentine, 63 F.3d 459, 461-62 (6th Cir.1995) (transactions were $8,363 misappropriated from copying fees and $7,000 of lost wages when employee labor was misappropriated for personal use); United States v. Wyncoop, 11 F.3d 119, 120 (9th Cir.1993) (transaction was $65,000 in federal student loans); United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459, 463 (9th Cir.1991) (transaction was stair cleaning project worth $5,790); United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 575 (5th Cir.1988) (transactions were purchases of goods worth $14,482.92).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marmolejo
(8×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 576 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard Foley, Jr.
(4×)
The court stated that "it is clear that Congress has cast a broad net to encompass local officials who may administer federal funds, regardless of whether they actually do." United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d at 574-75, 577 ; see also United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459, 463 (9th Cir.1991) ("By enacting section 666, Congress plainly decided to protect federal funds by preserving the integrity of the entities that receive the federal funds rather than requiring the tracing of federal funds to a particular illegal transaction."); United States v. Snyder, 930 F.2d 1090, 1091-93 (5th Cir.), …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dransfield
In reaching this decision, the Second Circuit focused on the integrity of the federal funds themselves, stating: “ ‘It is sufficient that Congress seeks to preserve the integrity of federal funds by assuring the integrity of the organization that receives them.’ ” Id. at 172 (quoting United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir.1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Patricia Valentine
(2×)
Neither the statutory language nor the legislative history supports her argument. 32 After reviewing the provision at issue, the plain language prompted the court in United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 577 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988), to hold that there was no need for the United States to trace stolen money, noting that any "reference to federal funds is conspicuously absent from the operative provision [contained in Sec. 666(a) ]." Accord, United States v. Wyncoop, 11 F.3d 119 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Coyne, 4 F.3d 100 (2d Ci…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Benjamin Bonito, Jr.
The rationale for this was stated most succinctly by the Fifth Circuit: “It is sufficient that Congress seeks to preserve the integrity of federal funds by assuring the integrity of the organization that receives them.” United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John P. Rooney, Jr.
See, e.g., Coyne, 4 F.3d at 111 (county executive); Santopietro, 996 F.2d at 18 (mayor); United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459, 461 (9th Cir.1991) (manager of local transit authority); United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 573 (5th Cir.) (county supervisor), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988); Concepcion, 795 F.Supp. at 1268 (employee of city agency).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Foley
See, e.g., Coyne, 4 F.3d at 109 (holding jurisdictional amount of $10,000 in federal financial assistance necessary to support § 666 charge against local or state official need not have been connected to project that was subject of official’s misconduct); see also United States v. Grubb, 11 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.1993) (limiting jurisdictional prerequisite of § 666 to receipt of at least $10,000 in funds by affected subdivision of state government); United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459 (9th Cir.1991) (holding § 666 does not require a tracing of federal funds to the project affected by the brib…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Lynn Wyncoop
In Simas we quoted with approval the opinion of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 576 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988), which had said: “[A]ny reference to federal funds is conspicuously absent from the operative provisions, and it is clear that Congress has cast a broad net to encompass local officials who may administer federal funds, regardless of whether they actually do.” Id. at 577.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Medicare&medicaid Guide P 41,995 United States of America v. Tom Henry, David Jones and James Henry
However, as the court stated in United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 577 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 (1988) the government is not required to trace the flow of federal money under 18 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James J. Coyne, Jr.
There is no requirement that the particular program be the recipient of the federal funds.” Id. at 1369 (citing United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 576 (5th Cir.) (stating that Section 666 did not require “the government to trace federal funds to the tainted transactions of a local government agency covered by the statute”), ce rt. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988)); see also United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459, 463 (9th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mike Moeller, Peter Thomas McRae and Billie Quicksall
United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 577 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988); United States v. Snyder, 930 F.2d 1090 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 380 , 116 L.Ed.2d 331 (1991). 11 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. v. Moeller
United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459, 463 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572 , 577 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 (1988); United States v. Snyder, 930 F.2d 1090 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 380 (1991). 11 United States v. Little, 889 F.2d 1367 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 933 (1990); Westmoreland. 12 841 F.2d at 576. 6 of federal funds.13 Of critical importance to our inquiry, section 666 defines "government agency" thusly: [T]he term "government agency" means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of govern…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shelton
The Government relies upon United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 575-578 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Karin D. Follin, John H. Stewart, Broadus v. Stewart, Jr., Donald L. Mason, and Christopher H. Crawford
United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988); United States v. Stephenson, 887 F.2d 57, 59 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1086 , 110 S.Ct. 1151 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Helder C. Simas
Contrary to Simas’ contention, the language of the statute does not require the project affected by the bribe to be “ ‘any federally funded transaction involving $5,000.’ ” See United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 576 (5th Cir.) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 , 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Avery Mills
See, e.g., United States v. Evans, 910 F.2d 790, 796 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 581 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 62 (1988); United States v. Paschall, 772 F.2d 68, 73 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1119 (1986); United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 594-96 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1106 (1982); United States v. French, 628 F.2d 1069, 1074 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 (1980); United States v. Hall, 536 F.2d 313, 320-21 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 919 (1976); United States v. Hathaway, 534 F.2d 386, 393-94 (1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bobby R. Little and North Mississippi Supply Company, Inc.
But this court in U.S. v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 576 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1989), rejected that argument in another prosecution under “Operation Pretense.” There, the court held that if the agency received $10,000 in any given year, then the agents were subject to Sec. 666.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stewart
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The Fifth Circuit, in discussing the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 666 , spoke of “the federal government's assistance programs.” United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988) *1072 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gerald Vontsteen
See Finney, 714 F.2d at 422 ; United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 581 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 62 , 102 L.Ed.2d 39 (1988); United States v. McDonald, 837 F.2d 1287, 1293 (5th Cir.1988). 7 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jimmie T. Duvall and Alfred Grant Revette
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Before we took this case under advisement, however, we decided United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 573 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VICTOR GONZALEZ
(2×)
Where bribery involves the requisite sort of employee of an organization receiving sufficient federal funds, “the direct involvement of federal funds in a transaction is not an essential element of bribery under section 666(b)”, United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added); the statute’s language is “plain and unambiguous” and “eliminate[s] the need to trace the flow of federal monies”, id. at 576, 577 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kern Wilson
See United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 577 (5th Cir.1988) (“[I]t is clear that Congress has cast a broad net....”); United States v. Romano, 879 F.2d 1056, 1060 (2d Cir.1989) (“The [Supreme] Court stressed that the bribery statute was drafted with broad jurisdictional language ... to reach all people performing activities for the federal government, regardless of the form of federal authority.” (emphasis added)).
cited
Cited "see"
Sanchez v. Harbor Const. Co., Inc.
See Melancon v. Amoco Production Co., 834 F.2d 1238, 1247, n. 17 (5th Cir.), reh'g granted on other grounds, 841 F.2d 572 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Igor Brunshtein, Also Known as \Mark
See Foley, 73 F.3d at 492 (“ ‘It is sufficient that Congress seeks to preserve the integrity of federal funds by assuring the integrity of the organization that receives them.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Westmoreland, 841 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir.1988), and United States v. Bonito, 57 F.3d 167, 172 (2d Cir.1995)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel MELANCON, Et Al., Plaintiffs,
v.
AMOCO PRODUCTIONS COMPANY, Etc., Defendant-Appellant, v. BERAUD ENTERPRISES, INC., Third Party Defendant-Appellee
v.
AMOCO PRODUCTIONS COMPANY, Etc., Defendant-Appellant, v. BERAUD ENTERPRISES, INC., Third Party Defendant-Appellee
86-4491.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Mar 22, 1988.
John O. Charrier, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant., Richard A. Chopin, Thomas M. Richard, Metairie, La., for third-party defendant-ap-pellee.
Reavley, Williams, Higginbotham.
Cited by 10 opinions | Published
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion Jan. 6, 1988, 5th Cir.1988, 834 F.2d 1238)
PER CURIAM:IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby GRANTED for the sole purpose of amending the last paragraph before the VI Conclusion on page 1184 of the slip opinion [834 F.2d 1248] Amoco is not entitled to the. costs incurred in establishing its indemnity claim against Beraud. “[T]he indemnitee may not recover those costs and expenses incurred simply establishing the indemni-tees [sic] right to indemnification from the indemnitors.” State v. Laconco, Inc., 430 So.2d 1376, 1385 (La.App. 1 Cir.1983); see also Dow Chemical Co. v. M/V ROBERTA TABOR, 815 F.2d 1037, 1046 (5th Cir.1987). The last sentence of Section V opinion will now read:
We remand to the district court for determination of Amoco’s expenses in defending against the Melancon suit.
In all other respects the motion for rehearing is DENIED.