United States v. Jibreel Rashad
687 F.3d 637, 2012 WL 2773893, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14077 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private citizen can be convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion 'under color of official right' if they participate in an illegal agreement with public officials who use their positions to extort others, even if the private citizen does not personally hold public office or receive the extorted property.
Facts:
- Real estate developer James R. 'Bill' Fisher sought political support from Dallas City Councilman Donald Hill for several low-income housing projects, in which Fisher had invested approximately a half million dollars each.
- Instead of providing support, Hill and Dallas City Plan Commissioner D'Angelo Lee began making extortionate demands of Fisher, including payments to a sham organization.
- Lee, a secret partner in the company RA-MILL, pressured Fisher to hire RA-MILL, which was run by Jibreel Rashad and Ricky Robertson, for construction work on his projects.
- When Fisher hesitated, Hill and Lee used their official positions to postpone and deny critical votes on Fisher's projects, jeopardizing his significant financial investments.
- Rashad and Robertson met with Fisher and explicitly stated that hiring their company, RA-MILL, would secure favorable votes from Lee and Hill for his projects.
- After Fisher continued to resist signing contracts with RA-MILL that included unusual up-front payments, Hill postponed another vote to increase leverage over Fisher.
- Following the postponement, Rashad demanded an $80,000 payment from Fisher, indicating that Fisher’s project would not be approved if the payment was not made.
- Believing he was being extorted, Fisher contacted the FBI and agreed to cooperate in their investigation, recording subsequent interactions with Rashad, Lee, and others.
Procedural Posture:
- Jibreel Rashad was charged in a multi-defendant federal indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit extortion.
- The U.S. District Court (trial court) granted Rashad’s motion for severance, allowing him to be tried separately from his co-defendants.
- Following a nine-day trial, a jury found Rashad guilty of the conspiracy charge.
- The district court sentenced Rashad to 57 months in prison.
- Rashad (Appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing insufficiency of the evidence among other issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private citizen who conspires with public officials to use their government positions to demand benefits from a third party commit extortion 'under color of official right' in violation of the Hobbs Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Jones
Yes. A private citizen's participation in an illegal agreement with public officials who are practicing extortion is sufficient to establish conspiratorial guilt under the Hobbs Act. Unlike cases where a private individual merely claims to have influence, Rashad was acting in concert with public officials Lee and Hill, who used their official power to create the extortionate situation. The evidence demonstrated that Rashad was central to the city officials' shakedown efforts, that Fisher knew Rashad acted with the officials' backing, and that the officials stood to benefit from the arrangement. Therefore, the 'under color of official right' element was established for the conspiracy. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence for extortion based on 'fear of economic harm,' as the officials' actions threatened the loss of Fisher’s half-million-dollar investment, not merely a potential future benefit.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the scope of conspiratorial liability for private citizens under the Hobbs Act's 'under color of official right' provision. It reinforces that individuals cannot act as intermediaries for corrupt public officials to escape liability. The key distinction is between a private actor merely pretending to have influence and one who is actively and knowingly participating in a scheme where a public official wields their power. This holding prevents a significant loophole where officials could use private associates to conduct and collect on their extortionate demands, thereby protecting the integrity of public office from both internal and external corruption.
