United States v. Carl A. Gee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[a] quid pro quo of money for a specific legislative act” is not necessary under § 666(a)(1)(B) and that an exchange of money for the official’s “influence” was enough
• characterizing “[a] quid pro quo [as] money for a specific legislative act” (em- phasis added)
• local entity administering federal welfare funds was MVRA victim of conspiracy to defraud United States through bribery scheme
• “Another argument is that the evidence does not establish any specific act that [the bribee] took in response to any specific payment . . . . Yet the statute does not require any such link.” (emphases added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).