From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
United States v. Pinson
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
860 F.3d 152 (2017)
Jonathan Pinson (defendant) was involved in four business ventures. Pinson’s first venture was the homecoming concert at South Carolina State University (SCSU). Pinson and Edward Givens, general counsel at SCSU, arranged for Pinson’s friend to be hired as the promoter for the homecoming concert. Pinson and Givens received kickback payments for the arrangement. Pinson’s second venture also involved Givens. Although Pinson was ultimately unsuccessful, Pinson attempted to arrange SCSU’s purchase of an off-campus facility so that he and Givens would receive kickback payments from the seller of the property. Pinson’s third venture was the diaper business Supremes, LLC, which he managed with businessmen Lance Wright and Robert Williams. Pinson applied for and received a grant from officials in the county where Supremes sought to establish a new factory. Pinson hired Phillip Mims as a project manager. Pinson, Mims, Wright, and Williams regularly submitted false invoices to the county for grant funding and pocketed the overpaid funds. Pinson’s fourth venture was the housing development Village at River’s Edge (the Village). Mims was the project manager of the Village. The Village received a grant from the local housing authority to expand the development. Pinson and Mims submitted invoices for work done by a subcontractor but retained some of the money and failed to fully repay the subcontractor. Wright and Williams were investors in the Village but were not involved in the payment scheme. The government (plaintiff) charged Pinson in federal district court with crimes including conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Pinson moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied. Pinson was convicted of RICO conspiracy. Pinson appealed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that he was guilty of RICO conspiracy.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Diaz, J.)
What to do next…
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 607,000 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
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 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 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.