Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

United States v. Blankenship

United States v. Blankenship

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

August 26, 2004, Decided ; August 26, 2004, Filed

No. 01-17064

Opinion

 [*1116]  TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

The defendants in this case--Randy Blankenship, Tammy Blankenship,  [**2]  Howard Glover, and Tarand Transport, Inc.--were convicted of a variety of federal offenses stemming from an affirmative action fraud scheme they perpetrated regarding federally funded road construction projects. We conclude that the district court acted properly in conducting a joint trial of the defendants and that the defendants did not suffer undue prejudice due to the prosecution's closing arguments to the jury. However, we reverse the Blankenships' convictions for money laundering and most of Glover's convictions for making false statements, and remand this case to the district court so that the defendants may be resentenced.

Because the ] defendants are challenging their convictions, we interpret the facts in the light most favorable to the government.  See  United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1200 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). The Florida Department of Transportation (the "FDOT") received grants from the United States Department of Transportation (the "USDOT") to subsidize construction of Interstate Highway 4 ("I-4"). As a condition of receiving these grants, the FDOT was contractually obligated to ensure that at least 12% of the USDOT's funds ultimately [**3]  went to "disadvantaged business enterprises" ("DBEs"). A DBE is a small firm owned and controlled by a woman or minority. See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. § 14-78.002(9).

The construction of I-4 was broken down into several smaller segments, including the "3430 project" and the "3431 project." The FDOT contracted with Granite Construction, one of the largest construction companies in the nation, to be its prime contractor on both projects. As part of its agreement with the FDOT, Granite was required to ensure that at least 12% of its subcontracts for both projects were set aside for DBEs. To help fulfill this requirement, Granite hired H.J. Trucking, a licensed DBE owned by Howard Glover (an African-American) to provide hauling services at the 3431 project construction site.

H.J. Trucking, however, never owned more than one dump truck or had any  [*1117]  employees, and so was unable to perform such a large project. Consequently, Glover entered into an oral agreement with Randy and Tammy Blankenship ("the Blankenships"), who owned Tarand Transport, Inc. The Blankenships agreed to use Tarand's equipment and employees to do all the work on the 3431 project, while making Granite believe [**4]  that it was being done by H.J. Trucking. Tammy Blankenship prepared various documents, including EEO forms, subcontracts, leases, and certified payroll records, to help foster the appearance that H.J. Trucking's employees and owner-operators 2 were performing the hauling at the construction sites, when the people doing the work were really under Tarand's control. 3

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

382 F.3d 1110 *; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18157 **; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 953

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RANDY W. BLANKENSHIP, TAMMY J. BLANKENSHIP, a.k.a. Tammy Blankenship Northrup, a.k.a. Tammy Northrup, a.k.a. Tammy Owens, TARAND TRANSPORT, INC., HOWARD L. GLOVER, Defendants-Appellants.

Subsequent History: Rehearing, en banc, denied by United States v. Blankenship, 124 Fed. Appx. 644, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 28248 (2004)

Rehearing, en banc, denied by United States v. Blankenship, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 28647 (11th Cir. Fla., Dec. 28, 2004)

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Glover v. United States, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 6127 (U.S., Oct. 3, 2005)

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 00-00382-CR-T-26.

Disposition: The judgment of district court AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.

CORE TERMS

Trucking, false statement, funds, convictions, conceal, money laundering, counts, federal government, severance, deposit, federal funds, supervision, contracts, leases, checks, indictment, district court, federal agency, payroll, joint trial, cases, proceeds, promises, transactions, co-defendants, reimbursement, parties, jurisdictional requirement, contractor, make a false statement

Criminal Law & Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, General Overview, Civil Procedure, Parties, Joinder of Parties, Misjoinder, Trials, Motions for Mistrial, Joinder & Severance, Defective Joinder & Severance, Severance of Codefendants, Abuse of Discretion, Governments, Courts, Judges, Accusatory Instruments, Judicial Discretion, Motions for Severance, Harmless & Invited Error, Defenses, Conflicting Defenses, Postconviction Proceedings, Motions for New Trial, Jury Instructions, Curative Instructions, Joinder of Defendants, Severance by Prosecutor, Plain Error, Limiting Instructions, Particular Instructions, Use of Particular Evidence, Jury Trials, Judicial Precedent, Burdens of Proof, Defense, Closing Arguments, Defendant's Failure to Testify, Banking Law, Public Enforcement, Criminal Offenses, Money Laundering, Racketeering, Money Laundering, Acts & Mental States, Mens Rea, Knowledge, Evidence, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Criminal Proceedings, Legislation, Interpretation, Rule of Lenity, Interpretation, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Lease Agreements, Fraud, Fraud Against the Government, False Statements, Theft & Related Offenses, Counterfeiting, Affirmative Defenses, Fraud & Misrepresentation, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contracts Law, Breach, Efficient Breach, Breach of Contract Actions, Contract Conditions & Provisions, Waivers, Nonperformance, Personal Property, Personalty Leases, Check Fraud, Elements, Negotiable Instruments, Types of Parties, Drawees & Payors, Types of Commercial Transactions, Enforcement, Duties & Liabilities of Parties, Drawers & Makers, Appellate Jurisdiction, State Court Review, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, Administrative Law, Separation of Powers, Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law, Congressional Duties & Powers