Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

United States v. Gatling

96 F.3d 1511 (1996)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

United States v. Gatling

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

96 F.3d 1511 (1996)

Facts

Cheryl Walker and Jennifer Gatling (defendants) were employees at the District of Columbia’s Department of Public and Assisted Housing (DPAH). Walker was Gatling’s supervisor. DPAH administered the section 8 federal housing-assistance program. The section 8 program provided subsidies to Washington, DC, residents who met certain income requirements and were on the waitlist, which was divided into categories based on need. Regulations required that the subsidies be allocated by need and according to position on the waitlist. Ten percent of subsidies could be allocated on a discretionary basis. Applications were required to be made in person, except for elderly and disabled applicants. Walker and Gatling engaged in two schemes to provide improper subsidies. The first scheme provided Chicago residents with subsidies via the mail. Anthony Bufford, a friend of Walker’s sister, arranged for two individuals to receive subsidies in exchange for money. Walker directed Bufford to contact Gatling who assisted with both applications. Walker received $1,000 for the first application, and Gatling received $1,000 for the second application. The applications were approved in June 1991 and March 1992, respectively. The other scheme provided DC residents with subsidies in person. Darnell Jackson and Rodney Knight brought applicants directly to Gatling at DPAH to submit applications for subsidies in exchange for $500 each. The scheme took place from September 1991 through April 1992. Two witnesses involved in this scheme testified that Gatling was splitting the money with Walker and that Walker assisted Gatling with completing paperwork for the subsidies. Between July 1991 and October 1992, Walker deposited $6,000 into her children’s savings accounts. Walker and Gatling were charged with and convicted of conspiring to accept bribes in return for section 8 subsidies. Walker and Gatling appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wald, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 619,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership