## Facts

- The District of Columbia administered federal Section 8 housing subsidies through DPAH, using eligibility rules requiring D.C. residency, income qualification, and allocation largely by waitlist category and application order.
- Jennifer Juliet Gatling worked as a Housing Specialist in DPAH’s Section 8 Division; Cheryl Walker was Gatling’s supervisor as Chief of the Division and later Acting Administrator of the Subsidized Housing Administration.
- The government presented evidence of two related subsidy-for-cash schemes occurring primarily in 1991–1992.
- In a “Chicago mail” scheme, Section 8 subsidies were arranged for people living in Chicago who did not qualify as D.C. residents and did not apply in person; Walker directed an intermediary to Gatling, and each defendant allegedly received a $1,000 payment connected to separate approvals.
- In a “D.C. walk-in” scheme, intermediaries brought applicants directly to Gatling to bypass waitlist and eligibility controls; intermediaries collected $500 per applicant, and witnesses testified Gatling shared proceeds with Walker and that Walker helped with paperwork.
- Financial evidence showed Walker made deposits into her children’s savings accounts during the relevant period, which the government argued was consistent with receiving illicit payments.
- A jury convicted Gatling of conspiracy to commit bribery and four substantive bribery counts.
- A jury convicted Walker of conspiracy to commit bribery and one count of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001; both defendants received sentences exceeding 40 months.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for a single conspiracy to commit bribery rather than multiple, unrelated conspiracies.
2. Whether any variance between an indictment charging one conspiracy and proof arguably showing multiple schemes required reversal.
3. Whether the evidence supported treating Walker’s conduct as bribery (quid pro quo) rather than receipt of illegal gratuities.
4. Whether Walker’s § 1001 false-statement conviction could stand given an erroneous jury instruction on the materiality element.
5. Whether Walker’s additional trial and sentencing challenges warranted relief.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Gatling and Walker participated in a single conspiracy to commit bribery.
- The court rejected the claim that the proof established only multiple, smaller conspiracies; overlap in participants, timing, methods, and objective supported a single agreement, and any variance was not prejudicial.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding of bribery (not mere gratuities) because it supported a quid pro quo: payments in exchange for improper issuance of Section 8 subsidies.
- The court vacated Walker’s § 1001 conviction because the jury instruction on materiality was erroneous (as conceded by the government).
- The court otherwise affirmed the remaining convictions and Walker’s sentence, and affirmed all of Gatling’s convictions.

## Legal Principles

- A conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence; the government need not show an express agreement if the evidence supports a shared unlawful objective and coordinated action.
- Separate episodes may constitute a single conspiracy when they share a common purpose, overlapping participants, and a continuing course of cooperation, even if different intermediaries are used.
- Bribery requires evidence of a quid pro quo—payment made in exchange for an official act—rather than a payment given solely as a reward after the fact.
- A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 requires proper submission of the materiality element to the jury; a materially defective instruction warrants vacatur of the conviction.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Gatling’s bribery-related convictions and affirmed Walker’s bribery-conspiracy conviction and sentence, concluding the evidence supported a single, ongoing conspiracy to sell Section 8 subsidies for cash; it vacated only Walker’s false-statement conviction due to a defective materiality instruction.


United States v. Gatling, 96 F.3d 1511 (D.C. Cir. 1996)