United States v. Marion Michael O'Steen

O'Steen · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · April 4, 2025 · No. 22-13569

Summary

This Eleventh Circuit opinion reviews the conviction of defense attorney Marion Michael O’Steen for Hobbs Act extortion and failure to file currency reports following a conspiracy with a Florida State Attorney. The court addresses O’Steen’s claims regarding a duplicitous indictment count that improperly joined multiple offenses, violating Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and implicating Sixth and Fifth Amendment rights. After analyzing the procedural history, evidentiary rulings, and trial proceedings, the appellate court reverses the extortion conviction due to the structural defects in the indictment while affirming the remaining conviction.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Tjoflat, Circuit Judge; Jordan, Circuit Judge; Lag​oa, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decision date
April 4, 2025
Docket number
22-13569
Procedural posture
O'Steen appealed his federal convictions for substantive Hobbs Act extortion and failure to file a currency transaction report. The district court denied his Rule 29 motions for judgment of acquittal, and the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issues.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. It reviewed the Count Four sufficiency issue de novo and reviewed the unpreserved challenge to the instruction concerning extortion under color of official right for plain error.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Marion Michael O'Steen v. United States of America
Disposition
reversed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencegambling

Practice areas

criminal procedurecriminal lawevidencefederal jurisdiction

Questions Presented

  1. Whether O'Steen's Count Three conviction could stand when the indictment and jury instructions treated him as both a principal and an aider and abettor of extortion under color of official right, even though he was not a public official.
  2. Whether the Government presented sufficient evidence of a substantive Hobbs Act extortion affecting interstate commerce when the entire $60,000 paid to O'Steen had been supplied by the FBI.
  3. Whether the Government presented sufficient evidence that O'Steen willfully failed to file a Form 8300, including proof that he knew of the fifteen-day reporting period by the filing deadline.

Holdings

  1. The conviction could not be sustained because the Government failed to prove that Siegmeister committed the extortion offenses that O'Steen allegedly aided and abetted, and the jury instructions did not adequately identify the elements of the alleged principal offenses.
  2. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish the required effect on interstate commerce because the entire $60,000 paid to O'Steen was supplied by the FBI rather than taken from the assets of a victim or entity engaged in interstate commerce.
  3. The evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that O'Steen knew of the fifteen-day reporting requirement by September 7, 2018, and therefore his Count Four conviction had to be reversed.

Key quotations

Therefore, evidence of an alleged extortion involving purely government money cannot establish even the minimal effect on interstate commerce that is required by the Hobbs Act. (43)
We therefore conclude that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that O’Steen knew of the reporting requirement by September 7, 2018, but failed to comply with it by that date as alleged in Count Four. (51)
The District Court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on Count Four, and so his conviction on that count is reversed. (51)

Factual background

O'Steen represented Andy Tong in a Florida gambling prosecution brought by State Attorney Jeffrey Siegmeister. O'Steen obtained $60,000 from Tong in two $30,000 cash payments after discussing a deferred-prosecution or pretrial-intervention disposition with Tong and Siegmeister; the money had been supplied to Tong by the FBI as part of an undercover investigation. O'Steen did not file a Form 8300 within fifteen days of receiving the first payment, although he filed one approximately eight months later after learning of the FBI investigation. The Government did not prove that Siegmeister obtained any of the $60,000 or that O'Steen used extortionate fear to obtain money belonging to a victim engaged in interstate commerce.

Procedural history

A grand jury indicted O'Steen and Jeffrey Alan Siegmeister on multiple counts. O'Steen was tried on Counts One through Four and was acquitted on Counts One and Two but convicted on Count Three, interference with commerce by extortion, and Count Four, willful failure to file a Form 8300. The district court imposed concurrent 44-month prison terms, supervised release, a fine, and restitution. The Eleventh Circuit reversed both convictions and instructed the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal.

Remand instructions

Upon receipt of the mandate, the district court was instructed to enter a judgment of acquittal for O'Steen.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…