18-2990(L), 19-1272(Con)
United States v. Percoco
United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
August Term 2019
Argued: March 12, 2020
Originally Decided: September 8, 2021
Reversed and Remanded: May 11, 2023
Decided: September 5, 2023
Nos. 18-2990(L), 19-1272(Con)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH PERCOCO, STEVEN AIELLO, JOSEPH GERARDI,
LOUIS CIMINELLI, ALAIN KALOYEROS, AKA DR. K,
Defendants-Appellants,
PETER GALBRAITH KELLY, JR.,
MICHAEL LAIPPLE, KEVIN SCHULER,
Defendants.
Remand from the Supreme Court
of the United States, No. 21-1158.
Before: RAGGI, CHIN, and SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Joseph Percoco appealed from a judgment of
conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Caproni, J.), after a jury found him guilty of two counts of conspiracy
to commit honest-services wire fraud (Counts Nine and Ten), and one count of
solicitation of bribes and gratuities (Count Eleven). Finding no merit in the
arguments raised on appeal, we affirmed the judgment of the district court. See
United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 180 (2d Cir. 2021). Percoco then petitioned the
Supreme Court for review, asking that Court to decide, as pertinent to Count Ten,
whether a private citizen who has informal political or other influence over
governmental decision-making can be convicted of honest-services fraud. The
Supreme Court reversed our judgment – holding that the district court’s jury
instructions, based on our decades-old decision in United States v. Margiotta, 688
F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1982), were clearly erroneous – and remanded for further
proceedings. See Percoco v. United States, 598 U.S. 319 (2023). Having given due
consideration to the Supreme Court’s decision in Percoco, we now AFFIRM
Percoco’s convictions and sentences on Counts Nine and Eleven for the reasons
set forth in our prior opinion, VACATE his conviction and sentence on Count Ten,
and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
MICHAEL L. YAEGER, Carlton Fields, P.A.,
New York, NY (Walter P. Loughlin, New
York, NY, on the briefs), for Defendant-Appellant
Joseph Percoco.
MATTHEW D. PODOLSKY (Robert L. Boone,
Janis M. Echenberg, Won S. Shin, on the brief),
Assistant United States Attorneys, for Damian
Williams, United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York, New York,
NY, for Appellee.
2
PER CURIAM:
In 2019, Defendant-Appellant Joseph Percoco appealed from a judgment of
conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Valerie E. Caproni, J.), after a jury found him guilty of two counts of
conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349
(Counts Nine and Ten), and one count of solicitation of bribes and gratuities, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(1)(B) and 2 (Count Eleven). Before this Court,
Percoco challenged (among other things) the district court’s instructions on Count
Ten that he could be liable for actions that he agreed to undertake while he was
not formally employed as a state official. Finding that the district court’s
instructions fit comfortably within our decades-old decision in United States v.
Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1982), and finding no merit in the other arguments
raised on appeal, we affirmed the judgment of the district court. See United States
v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 180 (2d Cir. 2021).
In 2022, Percoco petitioned the Supreme Court for review, asking that Court
to decide, as pertinent to his conviction on Count Ten, “whether a private citizen
who has informal political or other influence over governmental
decision[-]making can be convicted of honest-services fraud.” Percoco v. United
3
States, 598 U.S. 319, 325 (2023) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 325
n.2 (noting that “Percoco did not petition for review of the Second Circuit’s
affirmance of the two other convictions relating to additional conduct”). The
Supreme Court granted certiorari, Percoco v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2901 (2022),
reversed this Court’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings, see Percoco,
598 U.S. at 333. Upon the case returning to us, Percoco and the government filed
a letter jointly “request[ing] that the Court vacate Percoco’s conviction and
sentence on Count Ten, affirm Percoco’s convictions and sentences on Counts
Nine and Eleven, and remand so that the [g]overnment may move to dismiss
Count Ten and the [d]istrict [c]ourt may amend the judgment to remove the
penalties imposed for the conviction on Count Ten while leaving intact the
penalties imposed for the convictions on Counts Nine and Eleven.” Doc. No. 520
at 2; see also id. (“recognizing that this Court ordinarily remands for resentencing
when vacating fewer than all of a defendant’s convictions on direct appeal,” but
stating that “Percoco waives any resentencing with respect to his remaining
convictions on Counts Nine and Eleven”). 1
1On remand, Percoco has abandoned any argument that vacating his conviction on Count Ten
also necessitates vacating his convictions on Counts Nine and Eleven due to prejudicial spillover.
Compare Doc. No. 520, with Percoco, 598 U.S. at 325 n.2.
4
Having given due consideration to the Supreme Court’s decision in Percoco,
we agree with the parties’ proposal. As an initial matter, because our previous
analysis of Counts Nine and Eleven is unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision,
we affirm Percoco’s convictions and sentences on those counts for the reasons
stated in our prior opinion. See Percoco, 13 F.4th at 188–92 (concluding that the
error in the so-called “as opportunities arise” jury instruction was harmless); id. at
197–98 (rejecting Percoco’s challenge to the gratuity jury instruction); id. at 199–
201 (rejecting Percoco’s sufficiency-of-evidence challenge); id. at 202–03 (rejecting
Percoco’s challenge to a portion of the forfeiture order); see also Escalera v. Coombe,
852 F.2d 45, 47 (2d Cir. 1988) (“Any reconsideration at this juncture of our earlier
opinion must be limited to the scope of the Supreme Court’s remand.”). The same,
however, cannot be said with respect to our previous analysis of Count Ten.
Although the Supreme Court held that a private citizen “nominally outside public
employment” can, in certain circumstances, be convicted of defrauding the public
of honest services, Percoco, 598 U.S. at 329–30, it nonetheless concluded that the
Margiotta-based jury instructions given at trial in this case were erroneous, and
that “it [was] far from clear that the erroneous jury instructions would be
harmless,” id. at 325–29, 330–33. Indeed, on remand, the government has made no
5
argument that the instructional error was harmless. See Doc. No. 520. Vacatur of
Percoco’s conviction and sentence on Count Ten is therefore warranted.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM Percoco’s convictions and sentences on Counts
Nine and Eleven, VACATE Percoco’s conviction and sentence on Count Ten, and
REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion. 2
2 This opinion addresses only Percoco’s convictions. The judgments against Percoco’s co-
defendants Louis Ciminelli, Steven Aiello, Joseph Gerardi, and Alain Kaloyeros have also been
either reversed or vacated by the Supreme Court. See Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023)
(reversing Ciminelli’s judgment and remanding); Aiello v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 2491 (2023)
(granting Aiello and Gerardi’s petitions for writ of certiorari, vacating their judgments, and
remanding for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinions in both Percoco and
Ciminelli); Kaloyeros v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 2490 (2023) (granting Kaloyeros’s petition for writ
of certiorari, vacating his judgment, and remanding for further consideration in light of the
Supreme Court’s opinion in Ciminelli). As requested by Ciminelli, Aiello, Gerardi, and Kaloyeros,
briefing is currently underway to determine how this Court should proceed in light of the
Supreme Court’s opinion in Ciminelli. See Doc. Nos. 496, 517. As requested by Aiello, the Court
will address the effect of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Percoco on Aiello’s convictions when it
addresses the effect of Ciminelli on those convictions. See Doc. Nos. 524–25.
6