## Facts

- Jonathan N. Pinson, a businessman, served on the board of trustees of a state-supported university while participating in multiple business ventures from 2006–2012.
- The prosecution linked four sets of dealings to a broader course of wrongdoing:
  - A university homecoming concert contract in which the promoter and a Pinson associate allegedly agreed to share proceeds with Pinson and a university official; Pinson received a $500 wire transfer connected to the arrangement.
  - A proposed university purchase of a luxury property in which the seller allegedly promised Pinson a financial benefit if the university completed the transaction; the purchase was never completed.
  - A diaper-manufacturing venture that received local grant funds; the government alleged false or inflated invoices were submitted and excess funds were diverted for personal benefit.
  - A housing development funded through a local public entity; the government alleged invoicing and payment practices that diverted project funds.
- A federal grand jury charged Pinson with multiple offenses, including RICO conspiracy, theft from a federally funded program, honest-services fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and false statements.
- A jury convicted Pinson on multiple counts; the district court denied post-trial motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging constructive amendment of the indictment.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove a RICO conspiracy agreement to conduct an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for theft or intentional misapplication of property of an organization receiving federal funds under 18 U.S.C. § 666.
3. Whether the district court constructively amended the indictment by permitting conviction on bases broader than those returned by the grand jury.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the remaining fraud, money-laundering, and false-statement convictions.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing in a published per curiam opinion; one judge dissented in part.
- The court vacated the RICO conspiracy conviction for insufficient evidence of the required enterprise-level agreement to pursue a pattern of racketeering.
- The court vacated the § 666 government program theft conviction(s) for insufficient evidence on statutory elements concerning the relevant property and its relationship to the federally funded entity.
- The court rejected the constructive-amendment claim, finding no broadening of the charged bases for conviction.
- The court affirmed the remaining convictions, including honest-services fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and false statements.

## Legal Principles

- RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) requires proof of an agreement that the enterprise’s affairs will be conducted through a pattern of racketeering activity; evidence of multiple wrongs does not alone establish the necessary enterprise-level agreement.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 666, the government must prove intentional theft or misapplication of property owned by, or under the care, custody, or control of, an organization that receives the statute’s threshold amount of federal benefits within the relevant period.
- A constructive amendment occurs when jury instructions or the proof broaden the possible bases for conviction beyond those charged by the grand jury; immaterial variances that do not change the essential elements do not require reversal.
- On sufficiency review, convictions are upheld only if the evidence permits a reasonable jury to find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit set aside the RICO conspiracy and § 666 convictions because the proof did not establish the required agreement to pursue enterprise racketeering or the statutory property elements for program theft, but it left intact Pinson’s other fraud-related convictions, rejected a constructive-amendment challenge, and remanded solely for resentencing on the affirmed counts.


United States v. Pinson, 860 F.3d 152 (4th Cir. 2017)