## Facts

- The U.S. Air Force ran a program to sell C‑130 aircraft to foreign countries and arrange private maintenance/support contracts tied to those sales.
- Colonel Eugene Donald Schaltenbrand, a U.S. Air Force Reserve officer, was activated in short periods from February to May 1987 to assist the Air Force with site surveys and planning for a Mexico-related portion of the program.
- Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE) was a private contractor positioned to obtain the Mexico maintenance/support work.
- After an April 1987 meeting involving the Air Force, TBE, and Mexican officials, Schaltenbrand contacted TBE’s vice president about potential post‑government employment on the Mexico project, submitted a résumé, and met to discuss the position and his qualifications.
- Schaltenbrand’s Air Force involvement on the Mexico project ended when he was deactivated on July 1, 1987.
- TBE offered Schaltenbrand a job on September 25, 1987, to lead its Mexico project team; he accepted on September 28, 1987.
- As a TBE employee, Schaltenbrand attended a November 4, 1987 status conference between TBE and the Air Force about the Mexico project; he had no decision-making authority, did not speak for TBE, and contributed minimally.
- He was convicted in federal district court of (1) 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) (conflict of interest) and (2) 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) (post‑employment representation restriction).
- On appeal, he also challenged admission of his communications with Judge Advocate General attorneys as privileged.

## Issues

1. Whether Schaltenbrand’s contacts with TBE while still working on the Mexico project for the Air Force constituted “negotiating” for employment, creating a disqualifying financial interest under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a).
2. Whether Schaltenbrand acted as TBE’s “agent” at the November 4, 1987 conference, satisfying the representation element of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a).
3. Whether admission of privileged communications with government attorneys required reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the § 208(a) conviction.
- The court reversed the § 207(a) conviction and directed entry of a judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence.
- The court concluded any error in admitting privileged attorney-client communications was harmless as to the affirmed conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), “negotiation” for employment includes two-way employment discussions showing mutual interest; a formal offer is not required.
- A disqualifying “financial interest” under § 208(a) can arise once a government employee begins employment negotiations with an entity whose interests are directly affected by the same particular matter in which the employee participates personally and substantially.
- For 18 U.S.C. § 207(a), the government must prove the former official acted as a private party’s “agent or attorney,” requiring evidence of actual or apparent authority to represent or bind the private party in dealings with the government.
- Mere employment by the private party, attendance at meetings, or limited technical participation does not, without more, establish agency under § 207(a).
- Admission of privileged communications may be treated as harmless error where independent evidence supporting the conviction is overwhelming and the error did not affect the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that Schaltenbrand violated § 208(a) by pursuing employment with a contractor interested in the same Air Force matter he was working on, but it found insufficient evidence that he acted as the contractor’s agent under § 207(a) when he later attended a project meeting as a private employee, requiring acquittal on that count.


United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991)