Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy; 18 USC §§ 1962(c) & (d); United States v Hills; Hobbs Act extortion; 28 USC § 1951; Evans v United States; Honest services fraud; §§ 1343 & 1346; Jury instructions; Sufficiency of the evidence; Money laundering; Sixth Amendment right to counsel; Dismissal of a juror; Ability to speak with counsel; Co-conspirator evidence; Relevance; Unfair prejudice; Judicial bias; Sentencing; Procedural & substantive reasonableness; Enhancement for a bribery-related conviction based on the value of the bribe; USSG § 2C1.1(b)(2); Obstruction of justice enhancement (§ 3C1.1); Other evidentiary challenges

The court affirmed defendants-Householder’s and Borges’s convictions for RICO conspiracy, holding among other things that there was sufficient evidence to support the racketeering acts. There was evidence that Householder received millions of dollars in exchange for passing certain legislation and saving it from a voter referendum, and that “Borges knew and agreed to facilitate the illegal activity involved in the Householder enterprise.” Householder was a member of the Ohio House of Representatives and former House Speaker. A jury convicted him “of conspiring to solicit and receive almost $60 million in return for passing a billion-dollar bailout of a failing nuclear energy company” – FirstEnergy, an Ohio-based public utility holding company. Borges was found guilty of playing a role in the conspiracy. The court first considered Householder’s claim that the jury instructions as to a quid pro quo in exchange for an official act were improper. The court disagreed, noting that the district court’s jury instruction came “straight from” the Supreme Court’s holding in Evans, and mirrored the court’s pattern jury instructions. As to his challenge to the timing instruction, the court recently said in Hills that the “exact same ‘as opportunities arise’ bribery instruction was proper.” The court also held that there was sufficient evidence that Householder’s enterprise committed racketeering acts the government divided “into three broad categories: public-official bribery, private-citizen bribery, and money laundering.” As to extortion and honest services fraud, there was evidence that “he solicited and received millions of dollars from FirstEnergy in exchange for passing the bailout legislation and saving that bailout from a voter referendum.” The court also held that his claim for denial of the right to counsel could not be supported by the dismissal of a juror related to COVID-19. His evidentiary claims likewise failed, and the court found no judicial bias. Further, his sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, with any errors being harmless. As for Borges, the court noted that “a conspiracy charge rests on the unlawful agreement to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all the elements of a substantive criminal offense.” It held that the evidence showed “Borges had a deep knowledge of (and involvement in) Householder’s bribery scheme.” As to his evidentiary challenges, the “district court didn’t abuse its discretion when it sustained the prosecution’s objections to” testimony about “meeting with lawyers during the attempt to pass House Bill 6” where it was “concerned that Borges was attempting to raise a pseudo-advice of counsel defense.”