## Facts

- Thomas Venezia operated an illegal video-gambling enterprise through B & H Vending/Ace Music Corporation, supplying video poker machines to bars and facilitating illegal payouts.
- Amiel Cueto, an Illinois attorney, served as Venezia’s counsel and advisor and agreed to represent Venezia and associated tavern owners if arrests or charges arose.
- Cueto had a personal financial interest connected to Venezia’s illegal operation.
- During an ongoing federal investigation and later prosecution of Venezia and B & H, Cueto engaged in a pattern of litigation-related actions that the government characterized as frivolous and designed to interfere with the investigation and proceedings.
- A central episode involved Cueto’s preparation of a civil complaint and requests for injunctive relief against Bonds Robinson, an Illinois Liquor Control Commission agent who worked undercover and later cooperated with the FBI; Cueto accused Robinson of wrongdoing in connection with the investigation.
- The government alleged Cueto’s filings and accusations were intended to intimidate or remove an investigator and thereby obstruct the grand jury investigation and related judicial proceedings.
- A federal grand jury indicted Cueto for conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) and three counts of obstruction of justice under the omnibus clause (18 U.S.C. § 1503).
- A jury convicted Cueto on all counts; the district court imposed an 87-month sentence and monetary penalties.
- Cueto appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, constitutional validity of applying § 1503 to his conduct, evidentiary exclusions, and sentencing calculations.

## Issues

1. Whether litigation-related conduct by an attorney, when undertaken with a corrupt purpose to interfere with a federal investigation or prosecution, can constitute an “endeavor to obstruct justice” under 18 U.S.C. § 1503’s omnibus clause.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding lawful grand jury and prosecutorial functions.
3. Whether the First Amendment or due process limits prosecution where the alleged obstructive acts consist of court filings, petitions, and accusations against a government investigator.
4. Whether the district court committed reversible error by excluding defense evidence or misapplying the Sentencing Guidelines.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Cueto’s convictions and sentence in full.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding that Cueto corruptly endeavored to obstruct justice through a coordinated course of litigation-related acts aimed at derailing the investigation and prosecution.
- The court held the evidence supported the § 371 conviction because interference with lawful governmental functions may constitute “defrauding the United States.”
- The court rejected Cueto’s First Amendment and other constitutional arguments, concluding that speech or petitioning activity is not immunized when used as part of a corrupt obstructive scheme.
- The court found no reversible error in the exclusion of defense evidence and no error warranting resentencing under the Guidelines.

## Legal Principles

- The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 reaches any corrupt “endeavor” to obstruct the due administration of justice and is not limited to direct witness tampering or physical interference.
- Litigation tools (motions, complaints, injunction requests, appellate filings) may constitute obstructive acts when used with corrupt intent to impede an investigation or proceeding, even if they resemble ordinary advocacy.
- A § 371 conspiracy to “defraud the United States” includes schemes to interfere with lawful governmental functions, including grand jury investigations and prosecutions, through dishonest means.
- The First Amendment does not bar prosecution of filings or accusations when they are alleged and proven to be part of an obstructive scheme undertaken with corrupt intent; criminal liability turns on the obstructive purpose and conduct, not mere expression.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a defendant must show prejudice affecting substantial rights to obtain a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that an attorney’s use of court filings and accusations can support convictions for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud the United States when the evidence shows a corrupt effort to impede federal investigative and judicial processes, and it affirmed the convictions, evidentiary rulings, and sentence.


United States v. Cueto, 151 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 1998)