## Facts

- Ronnie Brunson Kenney was employed by BDM International, Inc., a private contractor providing acquisition support services to the U.S. Air Force.
- Kenney was assigned as the acquisition/project manager for an Air Force contract with Starflite Boats to supply runway edge-marker systems to a Florida base.
- Although paid by BDM, Kenney worked within the Air Force project and oversaw day-to-day contract execution, including technical evaluations and change recommendations.
- Air Force personnel relied on Kenney’s data and recommendations in making contract-performance decisions.
- Starflite was led to believe Kenney functioned as the Air Force’s project manager with influence over contract modifications.
- Kenney allegedly solicited a share of Starflite’s cost savings in exchange for approving or recommending approval of cost-saving modifications.
- After Starflite reported the solicitation, an investigation led to a three-count federal indictment alleging Kenney solicited bribes as a “public official” under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A).

## Issues

1. Whether Kenney, a private contractor employee performing acquisition-management functions for the Air Force, qualified as a “public official” under 18 U.S.C. § 201 for purposes of a § 201(c)(1)(B) gratuity conviction.
2. Whether the district court’s jury instruction defining “public official” improperly expanded § 201’s reach.
3. Whether the evidence was insufficient because the government failed to prove Kenney was a “contract manager” as alleged, requiring acquittal under Rule 29.
4. Whether pre-indictment delay required dismissal due to actual prejudice and improper governmental motive.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
- The court held Kenney qualified as a “public official” under § 201 despite being a contractor employee, because he had official responsibility connected to a federal program and provided recommendations relied upon by federal decisionmakers.
- The court upheld the jury instruction defining “public official” as consistent with § 201’s text and Supreme Court precedent.
- The court found the evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude Kenney functioned in the managerial acquisition role alleged and that denial of the Rule 29 motion was proper.
- The court rejected the pre-indictment delay challenge for failure to show actual, substantial prejudice and improper government purpose.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 201, “public official” is not limited to formal federal employees; it includes private individuals acting for or on behalf of the United States in an official function.
- A private actor may be a “public official” when occupying a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities, including meaningful responsibility to make decisions or to provide decision-making recommendations relied on by the government.
- A jury instruction on “public official” is proper when it tracks § 201’s functional definition and requires a concrete connection between the defendant’s role and federal governmental functions.
- A pre-indictment delay claim requires both actual, substantial prejudice to the defense and an unjustified delay (including improper tactical motive); absent these showings, dismissal is not warranted.
- On sufficiency review, evidence supporting the defendant’s functional managerial role and influence over official decisions may defeat claims of variance based on job-title wording in the indictment.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld Kenney’s gratuity convictions, concluding that a contractor employee embedded in a federal acquisition program can be treated as a § 201 “public official” when entrusted with responsibilities and recommendations that materially shape federal contract decisions, and finding no reversible error in the instruction, proof at trial, or the timing of the indictment.


United States v. Kenney, 185 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 1999)