United States v. Beachner Const. Co., Inc.

11 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Broce

    781 F.2d 792 (10th Cir. 1986)   Cited 24 times
    In United States v. Broce, 781 F.2d 792 (10th Cir. 1986), the Tenth Circuit examined the double jeopardy claims of several defendants who had each earlier pled guilty to two separate charges, contained in two separate indictments, of conspiracy to violate the Sherman Act.

    The defendants, Broce and the Broce Construction Company, were actively engaged in the highway construction business in the state of Kansas for a number of years prior to the indictments. Indeed, these indictments grew out of that very activity, as did the indictment in the companion case, United States v. Beachner Construction Co., Inc., 555 F. Supp. 1273 (D.Kan. 1983). In Beachner, as here, the defendants had been indicted on a charge of conspiracy to rig bids on a particular Kansas highway project.

  2. United States v. Broce

    753 F.2d 811 (10th Cir. 1985)   Cited 12 times

    On February 22, 1983, the defendants, pursuant to F.R.Crim.P. 35(a), filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence of the trial court in the second-filed case (here No. 83-2558) claiming that the judgment and sentence therein were illegal for violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This motion was prompted by a memorandum and order filed on January 31, 1983, in a similar case in the same judicial district, United States of America v. Beachner Construction Co., Inc., 555 F. Supp. 1273 (D.Kan. 1983), affirmed by this court, 729 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1984). In that case, District Judge Saffels found, after an evidentiary hearing, that a second prosecution, for conspiracy to rig bids on Kansas highway construction projects, of defendants who had previously been acquitted by a jury under an indictment differing from the second only with respect to the specific named project and other irrelevant matters, was contrary to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

  3. United States v. Waldbaum, Inc.

    612 F. Supp. 1307 (D. Conn. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    Under this test, the inquiry focuses on the overlap of various characteristics of the two purported conspiracies. See United States v. Mallah, supra, 503 F.2d at 981-87; United States v. Papa, supra, 533 F.2d 820-22; United States v. Price, 533 F. Supp. 1183, 1187-89 (W.D.N.Y. 1982) (narcotics conspiracy); United States v. Beachner Construction Company, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 1273, 1276-82 (D.Kan. 1983), aff'd, 729 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1984) (antitrust — price-fixing conspiracy); United States v. Wilshire Oil Company of Texas, 427 F.2d 969, 975-77 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 829, 91 S.Ct. 58, 27 L.Ed.2d 59 (1970) (same); United States v. Sinito, 723 F.2d 1250, 1257-59 (6th Cir. 1983) (RICO conspiracy); United States v. Tercero, 580 F.2d 312, 315-17 (8th Cir. 1978) (narcotics conspiracy); United States v. Jabara, 644 F.2d 574, 577 (6th Cir. 1981) (same); Note, "Single vs. Multiple" Criminal Conspiracies: A Uniform Method of Inquiry for Due Process and Double Jeopardy Purposes, 65 Minn.L.R. 295, 310-11 (1980) (Note). * * *

  4. U.S. v. Reicher

    777 F. Supp. 901 (D.N.M. 1991)   Cited 2 times
    Finding that defendant's agreement to have a non-competitor submit sham bid for laboratory project did not violate Section One because sham bidder was not a current or potential competitor in relevant market

    United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 881 F.2d 866, 869 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1043, 110 S.Ct. 837, 107 L.Ed.2d 833 (1990) (quoting United States v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., 694 F.2d 312, 325 (4th Cir. 1982)) (emphasis added). See also United States v. W.F. Brinkley Son Constr. Co., 783 F.2d 1157, 1160 (4th Cir. 1986); United States v. Koppers Co, Inc., 652 F.2d 290, 294 (2nd Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1083, 102 S.Ct. 639, 70 L.Ed.2d 617 (1981); United States v. Beachner Constr. Co., 555 F. Supp. 1273, 1276 (D.Kan. 1983), aff'd, 729 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1984); United States v. Seville Indus. Machinery Corp., 696 F. Supp. 986, 989 (D.N.J. 1988). Cf. United States v. Suntar Roofing, Inc., 897 F.2d 469, 472-74 (10th Cir. 1990) (market allocation conspiracy requires an agreement between competitors); TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1075 (D.Colo. 1991) (an agreement between entities that are not competitors does not violate section one of the Sherman Act).

  5. United States v. Broce

    488 U.S. 563 (1989)   Cited 2,333 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the review of a final judgment of conviction based on a guilty plea is generally limited to whether the plea was both voluntary and counseled

    The District Court granted the motion to dismiss. United States v. Beachner Construction Co., 555 F. Supp. 1273 (Kan. 1983) (Beachner II). It found that a "continuous, cooperative effort among Kansas highway contractors to rig bids, thereby eliminating price competition, has permeated the Kansas highway construction industry in excess of twenty-five years, including the period of April 25, 1978, to February 7, 1980, the time period encompassed by the Beachner I and Beachner II indictments."

  6. United States v. Leal

    921 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 2019)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, in contrast to the circumstances where Blockburger applies, "[w]hen, as here, a defendant claims that a second conspiracy charge is for the same conspiracy as the first conspiracy charge and therefore is a double jeopardy violation, ‘the court must determine whether the two transactions [alleged in the charges] were interdependent and whether the [co-conspirators] were "united in a common unlawful goal or purpose" ’ " (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Mintz , 16 F.3d at 1104 )

    Aplt. Br. at 15 (citing United States v. Beachner Const. Co., Inc. , 555 F.Supp. 1273, 1275 (D. Kan. 1983) ; United States v. Jabara , 644 F.2d 574 (6th Cir. 1981) ). At least one other circuit has adopted this burden-shifting framework.

  7. U.S. v. Makres

    937 F.2d 1282 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that no facial double jeopardy claim existed, even where the government's proffer at the plea inquiry failed to affirmatively demonstrate facts establishing that the charges were for distinct offenses

    The Supreme Court rejected this attempt to use a Rule 35(a) motion to attack collaterally a final judgment based on a voluntary guilty plea: United States v. Beachner Constr. Co., 555 F. Supp. 1273 (D.Kan. 1983), aff'd 729 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1984). A plea of guilty and the ensuing conviction comprehend all of the factual and legal elements necessary to sustain a binding, final judgment of guilt and a lawful sentence.

  8. United States v. Sargent Elec. Co.

    785 F.2d 1123 (3d Cir. 1986)   Cited 29 times
    Concluding that "an agreement among persons who are not actual or potential competitors in the relevant market is for Sherman Act purposes brutum fulmen."

    However, it is significant that at least two courts have expressly declined to follow Ashland-Warren. See United States v. Waldbaum, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 1307, 1313 (D.Conn.), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Beachner Construction Co., 555 F. Supp. 1273, 1282 (D.Kan. 1983), aff'd, 729 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1984). Even assuming that Judge Gibbons' view that noncompetitors can never conspire to restrain trade has some validity in theory, it seems unlikely that a situation would actually arise in which two conspirators that are truly not in competition would agree to engage in an anticompetitive practice when that agreement could in no way benefit either conspirator.

  9. United States v. Beachner Const. Co., Inc.

    729 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1984)   Cited 25 times
    In Beachner, the defendant had been acquitted of a conspiracy charge which included the substantive offenses forming part of the conspiracy.

    BARRETT, Circuit Judge. The United States appeals from an order of the district court, 555 F. Supp. 1273 (1983) granting the defendant-appellee Beachner Construction Co., Inc.'s (Beachner Co.) motion to dismiss an indictment on the basis of double jeopardy. On February 4, 1982, a Kansas City, Kansas, federal grand jury indicted Beachner Co. and its Secretary-Treasurer, Robert Beachner, on one count of bid-rigging in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and on one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.

  10. Branta, LLC v. Newfield Prod. Co.

    310 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (D. Colo. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    47. A conspiracy to rig bids in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 is essentially an agreement among actual or potential competitors which restrains competition in or effecting interstate trade or commerce. United States v. Beachner Const. Co. , 555 F.Supp. 1273, 1276 (D. Kan. 1983), aff'd , 729 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1984). Conspiracy may be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence.