## Facts

- Virgil M. Copeland managed facilities operations at Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company’s Marietta, Georgia plant and handled off-site leasing, executive relocations, and selection of contractors for building and maintenance work.
- John J. Winders, a licensed real estate appraiser and broker, obtained substantial Lockheed-related commissions through business Copeland referred to him.
- The government alleged Copeland steered Lockheed work to Winders on unusually favorable terms and that Winders paid Copeland roughly $15,000 in return.
- The government also alleged Copeland accepted payments from other Lockheed contractors in connection with projects he awarded.
- Copeland did not report these payments as income on his federal tax returns.
- A jury in the Northern District of Georgia convicted Copeland of multiple kickback counts (41 U.S.C. §§ 52–54), multiple bribery counts (18 U.S.C. § 666 and 18 U.S.C. § 2), and several counts of filing false tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)).
- Winders was also convicted on kickback and § 666-related bribery counts and for filing a false tax return.
- Both defendants appealed, including a challenge to whether § 666 applied to bribery involving Lockheed.

## Issues

1. Whether the government proved the § 666(b) jurisdictional element that Lockheed, as the relevant “organization,” received more than $10,000 in “benefits” under a federal program involving a form of federal assistance within a one-year period.
2. If that element was not proved, whether the defendants’ convictions for bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666 (and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2) must be vacated.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit vacated the defendants’ bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 666 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
- The court affirmed the kickback convictions under 41 U.S.C. §§ 52–54.
- The court affirmed the false tax return convictions under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).
- The case was remanded for resentencing in light of the vacated § 666 counts.

## Legal Principles

- Section 666 requires proof that the relevant organization received, in a one-year period, more than $10,000 in “benefits” under a federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of federal assistance.
- Payments to a private entity under ordinary, arm’s-length procurement contracts with the federal government are not, without more, “benefits” received under a federal assistance program for purposes of § 666(b).
- The scope and purpose of § 666 are directed at protecting federal program funds from corruption, not at extending federal bribery jurisdiction to all commercial contractor relationships with the federal government.
- If the government fails to prove § 666(b)’s jurisdictional prerequisite, convictions under § 666 (and derivative aiding-and-abetting liability tied to those counts) cannot stand.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that Lockheed’s status as a defense contractor paid under commercial contracts did not satisfy § 666(b)’s federal-program-benefits requirement, vacated the § 666 bribery convictions, affirmed the kickback and false-return convictions, and remanded for resentencing.


United States v. Copeland, 143 F.3d 1439 (11th Cir. 1998)