WPCq bQLRRyo؃r3^<<*QLSI\W QQn;41#htܒLԋmdɄDQCu 8\Xk q8O1?+A Fa4̣T>JuCC:Y6% ]gKtrOX=wQH\]9UV3J+})y*Wi_rKgBU C؇#g(4J8E n&r{jwS߰q " _zcz -u oې6DsYٙuԒ>Xxϋǁ*[sN%h, rmuꒊ<\yUQN E9~pH^M&Qr{n2%ac ZZZK'`&GguVG\Eϓ/+~GzDIvMju/|_E,.u{_#2 % 0D 0(= U:e 0 N( UN* Nx UFz U> ^ w 4 " 1 E3 f5 a7 mK b b : T \ _D aj ^)3-.U0k1W1 2 < BBBB 0NJK8NkTWxb]b]b]eee3gggllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllnHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(':2u$ !        0  vr Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier RegularV,s Z,E3|x TABLE AU u$      *    _ԀOftheEighthCircuit,sittingbydesignation. - - 0#"Xd#    & ' LC2JRG0LC2JRG .    w u$      20    _ԀThedistrictcourtstated:  8  Defendants'requestsarepremisedupontheirenduring @ contentionthatfederalmoneypaidtoaprivate X corporationwhichperformsaserviceforthegovernment   cannotconstitutefederalbenefits.   8   `  Wehavedisagreed,andcontinuetodisagree, `  withsuchacontention.Tosummarize,wefindthat ( x [HealthServices]wasnotinapurelycommercial  @ relationshipwiththefederalgovernment.First,the    contractbetweentheMunicipalityofSanJuanand[Health    Services]providedthat[HealthServices]wastobethe H   exclusivesourceofAIDScounselingandprofessional `  servicesinSanJuanandthattheMunicipalitymaintained (  administrativeandsupervisoryrolesover[Health   Services].Thisfactaloneclearlyindicatesmorethan h  acommercialrelationship.Moreover,wefindthatthe 0  contractualrelationshipitselfisaformofafederal H  assistance,supplyingAIDSservicesunderafederally  financedprogram.SeeUnitedStatesv.Copeland,143  F.3d1439,1441(11thCir.1998)("[_O]rganizations_ P engagedincontractualrelationshipswiththefederal h governmentwouldfallwithinthescopeof[section666], 0 ifthose'contractualrelationships_constitut[ed_]some  formofFederalassistance.'")(internalcitations p  omitted).Weinstructedthejuryaccordingly.   _Dub;n_Ԅ_Otero_,No.97091,slipop.at1011.  u$      10    _Ԁ X7YXXXTheNationalInstituteonDrugAbuse"supportsover85  percentoftheworld'sresearchonthehealthaspectsofdrugabuse x andaddiction."NationalInstituteonDrugAbuse,Welcometothe @ _NIDA_ԀWebsite,athttp://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDAWelcome.html(last X visitedMay17,2002).Partofitsmission"istoensuretherapid   andeffectivedisseminationanduseoftheresultsofthatresearch  tosignificantlyimprovedrugabuseandaddictionprevention, `  treatment,andpolicy."Id.Distributionoffundsisauthorized ( x under21U.S.C.1177(1994).#X7YXX X7Ys# : u$      9    _Ԁ X7YXXXWethusneednotdecidethecharacteroftheCentersfor  DiseaseControlormassmediaeducationprojectpayments.#X7YXX X7Yr# u$      4    _ԀAsweexplainbelow,federalmoniesarenotsynonymouswith  federalbenefitsforpurposesofaconvictionunder666. u$      1    _Ԁ X7YXXXHealthServiceslaterbecameanonprofitcorporation.#X7YXX X7Yr# u$      3    _ԀThestatuteprovidesinrelevantpart:  (a)Whoever,ifthecircumstancesdescribedinsubsection(b)of @ thissectionexists_Ԅ_ X   (1)beinganagentofanorganization,orofaState,local,     orIndiantribalgovernment,oragencythereof_Ԅ_     ` (A)embezzles,steals,obtainsbyfraud,orotherwise `     ` withoutauthorityknowinglyconvertstotheuseofany ( x    ` personotherthantherightfulownerorintentionally  @    ` misapplies,propertythat_Ԅ_       `  (_i_)isvaluedat$5,000ormore,and       `  (ii)isownedby,orisunderthecare,custody,or H      `  controlofsuchorganization,government,oragency; `     ` ... (  shallbefinedunderthistitle,imprisonednotmorethan10years,   orboth. h  (b)Thecircumstancereferredtoinsubsection(a)ofthissection 0  isthattheorganization,government,oragencyreceives,inany H  oneyearperiod,benefitsinexcessof$10,000underaFederal  programinvolvingagrant,contract,subsidy,loan,guarantee,  insurance,orotherformofFederalassistance. P (c)Thissectiondoesnotapplytobonafidesalary,wages,fees, h orothercompensationpaid,orexpensespaidorreimbursed,inthe 0 usualcourseofbusiness.  (d)Asusedinthissection_Ԅ_ p e   ...    (5)theterm"inanyoneyearperiod"meansacontinuous x   periodthatcommencesnoearlierthantwelvemonthsbeforethe @   commissionoftheoffenseorthatendsnolaterthantwelve X   monthsafterthecommissionoftheoffense.Suchperiodmay     includetimebothbeforeandafterthecommissionofthe    offense. `  18U.S.C.666.  u$      15    _ԀOneoftherequestedinstructionssaidthat"toactwith  intenttodefraudmeanstoactknowinglywiththeintentorthe x purposetoobtain,deceive,orcheat[HealthServices]outofmoney @ orproperty." Therewasalsoarequesttoinstructthejurythat X 8  Thegovernmentmustprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthat  [HealthServices]didnotauthorizetheexpenditure.One `  ofthewaysbywhichacorporationcanauthorizea ( x paymentisbytheboardofdirectors.Iftheboardof  @ directorsofAdvancedCommunityHealthServices    authorizedanexpenditure,thenthisexpenditurewasnot    theftorembezzlement.H       Otherinstructionswererequested,butsincetheyallembody (  variationsofthesamethemeastheonesabove,weneednotset   themallout. ) u$      5    _ԀAsinPartIabove,ourultimateconclusionhereprecludes  ourhavingtoaddresstheGovernment'salternative_Neder_argument.  u$      13    _ԀTheDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesencompassesthe  NationalInstituteonDrugAbuse.Mr.Pooledescribedhisduties x asadministeringindividualdiscretionarygrantprogramsgeared @ primarilytowardprovisionofhealthcareinUnitedStates X  territories.HehadbeenwithHealthandHumanServices  approximatelythirtyyearsandwasveryfamiliarwiththeirfederal x grantprograms. @ <\( 9Z+Courier  M u$      7    _ԀSubsection(c)states:"Thissectiondoesnotapplytobona  fidesalary,wages,fees,orothercompensationpaid,orexpenses x paidorreimbursed,intheusualcourseofbusiness." u$      8    _ԀAnumberofcasesfromothercircuits,whichpreceded  Fischer,alsosupportthepropositionthat,whilepurelycommercial x paymentsmadebythegovernment"asacommercialentity,suchas @ paymentsforsuppliesorequipment,"donotconstitutebenefits X under666, X7YXXXthemerepresenceofquidproquodoesnotprecludea   findingoffederalbenefits.UnitedStatesv.Rooney,986F.2d31,  3334(2dCir.1993)(holdingthatloanproceedsreceivedfromthe `  FarmersHomeAdministrationconstitutedbenefits);see#X7YXX X7Y# X7YXXX7YԀ#X7YXX X7Y\# X7YXXX7YUnited ( x Statesv.Copeland,143F.3d1439,1441(11thCir.1998)(holding  @ thatmoneypaidtoLockheedAeronauticalSystemsCompanyasthe    primecontractorfortheDepartmentofDefensedidnotconstitute    benefitsunder666);UnitedStatesv._Marmolejo_,89F.3d1185, H   118991(5thCir.1996)(holdingthatfundsprovidedtoacounty `  jail,inexchangeforthejailhousingfederalprisoners, (  constitutedbenefits),_aff'd_subnom.Salinasv.UnitedStates,522   U.S.52(1997)#X7YXX X7Y#. X7YXXX7YThosecasesdistinguishpurelycommercial h  transactionsfrom"moniesdistributedthrough'Federalprograms,' 0  forwhichthereis'aspecificstatutoryschemeauthorizingthe H  Federalassistanceinordertopromoteorachievecertainpolicy  objectives.'"Rooney,986F.2dat35(quotingS.Rep.No.98225,  at369(1984),reprintedin1984_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ3182,3510);see P Copeland,143F.3dat144142;_Marmolejo_,89F.3dat1190.#X7YXX X7Y#  u$      22    _Ԁ X7YXXX_Garib_Ԁalsopointstothedistrictcourt'sreimbursement  orderfollowingtheconvictionasevidenceofthedistrictcourt's x allegedconfusiononthisissue.Inthatorder,thedistrictcourt @ required_Garib_Ԁtorepaythefederalgovernmentforlossesit X incurredasaresultof_Garib_'sconductin1988. #X7YXX X7Ys# X7YXXX7YԀ Evenifwewere   toagreethatthereimbursementordersuggestsamisunderstanding  ofthelawonthepartofthejudge,itdoesnotinvalidatethe `  judge'sinstructions.Thejudgeneednotbecorrectinhis ( x reasoning,solongashewascorrectinhisdecisionbeing  @ challengedonappeal.See_Helvering_v._Gowran_,302U.S.238,245    (1937)("Inthereviewofjudicialproceedingstheruleissettled    thatifthedecisionbelowiscorrect,itmustbeaffirmed, H   althoughthelowercourtrelieduponawronggroundorgaveawrong `  reason.").#X7YXX X7Y# d  u$      11    _ԀCongresshasauthorizedtheSecretaryofHealthandHuman  Services,"actingthroughtheNationalInstituteonDrugAbuse,"to x makegrantsand"enterintocontractswithindividualsandpublic @ andprivatenonprofitentities"inordertoprovide"educational X programs,technicalassistanceforthedevelopment,demonstration,   andevaluationofdrugabuseprevention,treatment,and  rehabilitationprograms,"andinsodoingto"accordahigh `  prioritytoapplicationsforgrantsorcontractsforprimary ( x preventionprograms."21U.S.C.1177(a).TheSecretaryisto  @ "requirecoordinationofallapplicationsforprograms."    1177(c).Projectsandprogramsforpreventionandtreatment    servicesaresubjecttospecificrequirements.Theyshould, H   "wheneverpossible,becommunitybased,insurecareofgoodquality `  ingeneralcommunitycarefacilities...andbeintegratedwith, (  andprovidefortheactiveparticipationof,awiderangeofpublic   and_nongovernmental_Ԁagencies,organizations,institutions,and h  individuals."1177(f)."[_W]here_Ԁasubstantialnumberofthe 0  individualsinthepopulationservedbytheprojectorprogramare H  oflimitedEnglishspeakingability[,theyshould]...utilize.  ..outreachworkersfluentinthelanguagespoken,"and"identify  anindividualwhoisfluentbothinthatlanguageandEnglish"to P provideguidancetoindividualsoflimitedEnglishspeaking h ability.Id.(O$  u$      23    _Ԁ_Garib_Ԁraisesthreeotherarguments,whichweconcludeare  withoutmerit.Asphrasedinhisbrief,theyare:"TheDistrict x Court'sFlawedInstructionsOn X7YXXX666#X7YXX X7YU#ԀPropelledTheProsecutorTo @ ArgueThatDr._Garib_ԀHadAMotiveToLieToTheGrandJury";"The X DistrictCourt'sEndorsementOfTheFlawedTheoryOfProsecution   InvitedTheProsecutorToAssailDr._Garib_'sCharacterAnd  PrejudiceHisRightToAFairTrial";"TheCumulativeEffectOfThe `  DistrictCourt'sErrorsDeprivedDr._Garib_ԀOfAFairTrial." . u$      16    _ԀThedistrictcourtinstructed:  8  Embezzlementisthefraudulentappropriationofproperty @ with[sic]oneproperlyentrustedwithitspossession.X   8   `  Itistowillfullyconverttoone'sownuse,   withoutauthority,another'smoneyandproperty,ofwhich  thewrongdoeracquiredpossessionvalidly,of[sic]some `  office,employmentorpositionoftrust.( x   8   `  Theft,alsoknownaslarceny,istheactof  @ stealingortakingofpropertywithouttheowner's    consent.Itisthefraudulenttakingofpersonal    propertyfor[sic]moneybelongingtoanotherfromhis H   possessionorfromthepossessionofsomepersonholding `  thesameforhimwithouthisconsent,withanintentto (  deprivetheownerofthevalueofthesameandto   appropriateittotheuseorbenefitofthepersontaking h  it. 0     a u$      17    _ԀThedistrictcourtinstructedthejurythatinorderfor  themtoreturnaguiltyverdict,HealthServicesmusthavereceived x 8  inanyoneyearperiodbenefitsinexcessof$10,000 X underafederalprograminvolvingagrant,acontract,a   subsidy,aloan,aguarantee,insuranceorotherformof  federalassistance.Thissection[666]doesnotapplyto `  bonafidesalary,wages,fees,orothercompensation ( x paid,orexpensespaidorreimbursedintheusualcourse  @ ofbusiness.      Thedistrictcourtreiteratedthiselementof666later.   u$      18    _Ԁ X7YXXX_Dub;n_#X7YXX X7Ys#Ԁand_Garib_Ԁcite_Marmolejo_,89F.3dat1189,forthe  propositionthat"[_t]he_Ԁplainlanguageof666isambiguousin x defining'FederalProgram'and'FederalAssistance,'"andtherefore @ morewasrequiredthanmererecitationofthestatutorylanguage. X However,therecanbelittledoubtthatthe X7YXXX7YNationalInstituteon   DrugAbuse#X7YXX X7Y#Ԁ(whichwehaveconcludedisthesourceofthefederal  benefitsatissuehere)isafederalassistanceprogram.Thus, `  evenifweweretofinderrorinthedistrictcourt'sfailureto ( x define"federalprogram"and"federalassistance"inits  @ instructions,sucherrorwouldbeharmless.See_Bastien_v.    _Goddard_,279F.3d10,16(1stCir.2002)(instructionalerror    "entitlesappellanttoanewtrialonhisclaimonlyifithada H   prejudicialeffect"). n u$      12    _Ԁ ThecontractwiththeMunicipalityprovidesinpertinent  partthat: x 8  TheMunicipalitymusthiretheservicesofacompanywith X personnelthathastheexperienceandprofessional   knowledgenecessarytodesign,establish,directand  managetheAIDSprogramofSanJuan....[Health `  Services]willutilizetheequipmentlocatedatthe ( x facilitiesprovidedbytheMunicipality....  @  Epidemiologicalserviceswillbeprovidedinorderto  establishastateofalertnessofthediseaseaswellas x counselingandtreatmenttothepatients.The @ epidemiologicalactivitiesshallbecoordinatedwiththe X respectivestateandfederalauthorities....[Health   Services]willestablishaneducationalprogramforthe  communityinordertocreatepublicconscienceespecially `  tohighriskgroups....Thepopulationatlargewill ( x beeducatedregardingpreventionofAIDSandthe  @ differentmethodsoftransmission.  u$      19    _Ԁ_Garib_Ԁacknowledgestherequestedinstructionswerewritten  "sothatthejurycoulddifferentiatebetweenthepaymentsHealth x Servicesreceivedin1989(whichwerenot'benefits'),andthe @ federalgrantsitreceivedafterFebruary1991(whichwere X 'benefits')." SincewehavealreadyconcludedthatHealthServices   didreceivebenefitsin1989,therequestedinstructionsbuckle  undertheirownweight. S u$      21    _ԀBecause X7YXXX_Dub;n_#X7YXX X7Y{#'sconductallinvolved1989,andbecausewe  havealreadyconcludedthattherewasindeedsufficientevidence x forthejurytofindthatHealthServiceshadreceivedfederal @ benefitsin1989,weonlyneedtoconsiderthisargumentasit X pertainsto_Garib_. ) u$      14    _ԀBecauseweultimatelyconcludethattherewassufficient  evidenceforthejurytofindalackofvalidauthorization, x Appellants'Burbankargumentneednotdetainus.Wehaveserious @ concernsaboutsomeofthebroadlanguageinBurbank,butit X $ sufficestosaythatwhileitisonethingtodecidethatthe  consentofsoleorcoownerscanprecludeconvictionforinterstate x transportofstolenmoney(aswasthecaseinBurbankunder18 @ U.S.C.2314(2000)),itwouldbequiteanothertoextendthat X holdingtothiscaseinvolvingaconspiracytoembezzleorsteal   fundsfromanorganizationreceivingfundsfromthefederal  government,especiallygiventheattendantcomplexitiesof18 `  U.S.C.666.  u$      6    _ԀFischerwasdecidedaftertheconvictionsinthiscase.  Nonetheless,itappliesondirectappeal.SeeUnitedStatesv. x _Ochs_,842F.2d515,519(1stCir.1988)("[_I]n_Ԁourdirectreviewof @ theconvictionsenteredbelow,weareboundby_McNally_[v.United X States,483U.S.350(1987)],eventhoughitwasdecidedafterthe   completionofproceedingsinthedistrictcourt.").  u$      2    _Ԁ Becauseourultimateconclusionisthattherewasno  constructiveamendmentinthiscase,weneednotaddressthe x Government'sargumentthattheruleofpersereversalofcases @ wheretherehasbeenaconstructiveamendmenthasbeenmodifiedby X theSupremeCourt'srecentdecisionin_Neder_v.UnitedStates,527   U.S.1(1999)(holdingthatfailuretoinstructjuryonelementof  crimeissubjecttoharmlesserrorreview). !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !XXXX~XX     NvUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals~  FortheFirstCircuit   XX   A') ` dE<` A    X7YXX XNo.002029 u  @#UNITEDSTATES,  U @&Appellee,    @tt)v. %u  @<< LUISE._DUB:N_Ԅ_OTERO_,   @DefendantAppellant. E  No.002030  @#UNITEDSTATES, -} @&Appellee,   @tt)v. M @JORGEL._GARIB_Ԅ_BAZAIN_, - @DefendantAppellant. m A') ` dE<` A M @` ` APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT $! @ FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO d # @$ $ [Hon._Jos_ԀAntonio_Fust_,U.S.DistrictJudge] !D% @*A') ` dE<#` A #' @'Before [$) @ _Selya_,CircuitJudge, %;!+ @  JohnR.Gibson, #  *      ׀SeniorCircuitJudge, {'"- @and_Lipez_,CircuitJudge.  )[$/   A') ` dE<*` A *%1  r+&3? Nv 87YXXdd8         DavidW.Roman,withwhomBrown&_Ubarri_,FrederickP._Hafetz_,  SusanR._Necheles_,ElizabethM.Johnson,andGoldman&_Hafetz_were x onbrief,forappellant_Dub;n_. @   ScottA._Srebnick_,withwhomHowardM._Srebnick_andBlack, X _Srebnick_,&_Kornspan_wereonbrief,forappellant_Garib_.     RichardA.Friedman,UnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice,with  whomGuillermoGil,UnitedStatesAttorney,andMaria_Dominguez_Ԁand `  ThomasF._Klumper_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorneys,wereon ( x brief,forappellee.  @ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  H  H    SI   C@37404C@SMay29,2002 t   RHC< " C@37404 C@ R(   (  * !   T,'4 _   ` JOHNR.GIBSON,SeniorCircuitJudge.LuisDub;nOtero  andJorgeL.GaribBazainappealfromtheirconvictions,aftera @ jointtrial,forconspiringtostealpropertyworthmorethan   $5,000fromanorganizationreceivingmorethan$10,000infederal `  benefitsinanyoneyearperiod.See18U.S.C.371,  @ 666(a)(1)(A)and(2)(1994).Theyarguethattherewasa    constructiveamendmentoftheindictment,thattherewas `  insufficientevidencetoconvictthem,andthatthejury   instructionsweredefective.Theyalsochallengethemakeupof 0  theirjuryandtheappointmentoftheUnitedStatesAttorney.  Garibalsoappealshisconvictionformakingfalsedeclarations P beforeagrandjuryinviolationof18U.S.C.1623(1994).We 0 affirm. p    ` AdvancedCommunityHealthServices(HealthServices)was P incorporatedintheCommonwealthofPuertoRicoin1987asafor  profit܀corporation. #  1      ׀Dub;n,alawyer,andGarib,adoctor,were  p shareholdersanddirectors.Dub;nservedaslegaladvisorto   HealthServicesandGaribastheMedicalDirectorofPatient @" Services.Dr.YamilKourPerez wasaconsultantfromtheHarvard  $ InstituteforInternationalDevelopmentwho,togetherwithJeanette `"& SotomayorVazquez,theadministrativedirector,andAngelLuis #@( CorcinoMauras,thecomptroller,conductedthedaytoday % * operationsofHealthServices. '`",    ` Dub;nandGaribwerechargedwithconspiringtouse (#. HealthServicesfundstopaypersonalexpensesandmakepolitical 0*%0 payoffs.TheprincipalwitnessattrialwasCorcino,whose  testimonypaintedapictureofKourastheprimaryconspirator. @ KourandSotomayorwereindictedalongwithDub;nandGarib,but   triedseparately .Theywereconvicted,andweaffirmedinUnited `  Statesv.SotomayorVazquez,249F.3d1(1stCir.2001).   @    ` InJanuary1988,HealthServicescontractedwiththe    MunicipalityofSanJuantoprovideservicesforAIDSpatients. `  TheinitialcontractprovidedthattheMunicipalitywouldpay   HealthServicesaflatfeeof$3.2millionperyearforthese 0  services.BecauseunderthecontractHealthServicesbecame"the  exclusivesourceofAIDScounselingandprofessionalservicesin P SanJuan,"UnitedStatesv.Dub;nOtero,No.97091,slipop.at10 0 (D.P.R.March3,2000),federalmoniesbegantofindtheirwayto p HealthServices. P    ` TheGovernmentintroducedevidenceregardingthepayment  ofthesefederalmoniestoHealthServices,andthewaysinwhich  p Dub;nandGaribdivertedthesefunds.Thisevidencewillbe   discussedingreaterdetailbelow,aswediscussthevarious @" argumentsmadebyDub;nandGaribonappeal.  $    I. `"&      ` Dub;nandGaribarguethatthedistrictcourterredby #@( allowingaconstructiveamendmentoftheindictment.Specifically, % * theycomplainthecourtadmitted evidencethatthefundsthe '`", defendantshadstolenwerefederalorpublicfunds,whichmayhave (#. beenentrustedtoHealthServicesbutneverlosttheirfederalor 0*%0 publiccharacter.Appellantsargueadmissionofthisevidence +'2 constitutedaconstructiveamendmentoftheindictment.They  construetheindictmentaslimitingthechargeagainstthemto @ conspiringtostealonlyHealthServicesfunds.   8  Aconstructiveamendmentoccurswhenthechargingterms `  oftheindictmentarealtered,eitherliterallyorin ( x effect,byprosecutionorcourtafterthegrandjuryhas  @ lastpasseduponthem.Anamendmentoftheindictmentis    consideredprejudicialperseandgroundsforreversalof    aconvictionwhetheritisbroughtaboutbyaliteral H   alterationofthewordsoftheindictment,ajury `  instructionwhichmodifiestheoffensechargedinthe (  indictment,ortheadmissionofevidenceofanoffense   notchargedbythegrandjury.h    #UnitedStatesv.Dunn,758F.2d30,35(1stCir.1985)(internal H  quotationmarksandcitationsomitted).^ #  2           ` Thechargingparagraphoftheindictmentallegedthat h Dub;nandGarib,"asagentsofanorganizationwhichreceived  benefitsinexcessof$10,000.00underaFederalprograminvolving 8 agrant,orotherformofFederalassistance,"conspiredwith  othersto"embezzle,steal,andobtainbyfraud,andwithout X authorityknowinglyconverttotheuseofapersonnottherightful 8 owner,andintentionallymisapplypropertyworthatleast$5,000.00 x! ownedbysuchorganization,thatis,moniesinexcessof  X# $2,000,000.00inprogramfunds."(Emphasisadded.)(Paragraph !% ThirtySevenoftheindictmentread:"thedefendantsembezzled, (#x' stoleandobtainedbyfraud,inexcessof$2,000,000.00ofpublic $ ) funds."(Emphasisadded.))TheindictmentincorporatedCountsTwo  throughThirtyFourasovertacts,whichfurtherdescribedthe @ fundsinquestionas"ownedbyorunderthecare,custody,and   controlof[HealthServices]."(Emphasisadded.). UnderCountI, `  theindictmentchargedDub;nandGaribgenerallywithconspiracyto  @ violate666.Section666seeks,amongotherthings,topunish    anyagentofanorganizationreceivingmorethan$10,000infederal `  benefitsinanyoneyearperiod,who"embezzles,steals,obtainsby   fraud,orotherwisewithoutauthorityknowinglyconvertstotheuse 0  ofanypersonotherthantherightfulownerorintentionally  misappliespropertythat(i)isvaluedat$5,000ormore,and(ii) P isownedby,orisunderthecare,custody,orcontrolofsuch 0 organization."18U.S.C.666(a)(1)(A)(emphasisadded). #  3      ׀While p theelementsofthechargedcrimehaveto"appearprimarilyfrom  thelanguageintheindictment...commonsensesuggeststhat @ suchacitationshouldnotbeentirelyignoredwhere,ashere,it   soplainlyreinforceswhatisimplicitinthetext."UnitedStates `  v.McLennan,672F.2d239,24344(1stCir.1982).   @    ` Dub;nandGaribciteUnitedStatesv.Pheaster,544F.2d    353(9thCir.1976),forthepropositionthatovertactscannot `  supplyanelementmissingfromthechargingparagraph.Seeid.at   361("[A]conspiracyindictment'sspecificationofovertacts 0  cannotbeusedtosupplytheallegationofacriticalelement  completelymissingfromthecharginglanguage."). However, P Pheasteritselfrecognizedthat"referencetotheovertactsis 0 appropriatetoconfirmanotherwisecommonsenseinterpretationof p anallegationwhichisincludedinthecharginglanguage,"id.at P 362,andthusisofnohelptoAppellants.     ` Aprimaryobjectiveoftheruleagainstconstructive  p amendmentofindictmentsistoensuredefendantshavenoticeofthe   chargestheymustdefendagainst.UnitedStatesv.Kelly,722F.2d @" 873,876(1stCir.1983);cf.UnitedStatesv.Delano,55F.3d720,  $ 729(2dCir.1995)("[W]ehaveconsistentlypermittedsignificant `"& flexibilityinproof,providedthatthedefendantwasgivennotice #@( ....").TheindictmenthereputAppellantsonnoticethatthey  wouldhavetodefendagainstexactlythetypeofevidenceof @ entrustmentofwhichtheynowcomplain. IfDub;nandGaribchose   nottodefendagainstthattypeofevidence,thatchoicedoesnot `  makethedistrictcourt'spermittingtheGovernmenttogoforward  @ withsuchevidenceaconstructiveamendment.       @  @` II. `  9    ` Theindictmentinthiscasechargedaconspiracycovering   theyears1989to1994.Dub;nandGaribarguethedistrictcourt 0  erredbyrefusingtoacquitthemfollowingtrialbecausethe  GovernmentfailedtoproveHealthServicesreceivedanyfederal P benefitsbefore1991.Theycontendthatamountsreceivedin1989 0 werecommercialpayments,notfederalbenefits,andthustheir p convictionscouldnotbepredicatedonpre1991conduct. #  4      ׀Since P therewouldbenowayofassuringthejurydidnotrelyonpre1991  conductinreachingitsconclusion,theconvictioncouldthennot  p stand.See#X7YXX X7YYatesv.UnitedStates,354U.S.298,312(1957)("[W]e   thinktheproperruletobeappliedisthatwhichrequiresa @" verdicttobesetasideincaseswheretheverdictissupportable  $ ononeground,butnotanother,anditisimpossibletotellwhich `"& groundthejuryselected.") # X7YXX#X7Y=# .TheGovernment,ontheotherhand, #@( arguesitprovedHealthServicesreceivedfederalbenefits % * beginninginJanuary1989.Inthealternative,theGovernment '`", arguestheSupremeCourt'sdecisioninX7YXX X7YNederv.UnitedStates,527 (#. U.S.1(1999),modifiedYatestoallowharmlesserrorreview,and  theerrorherewasindeedharmless.# X7YXXX7Yg@#! #  5       @    ` WereviewadenialofaRule29motionforacquittalde   novo.UnitedStatesv.Czubinski,106F.3d1069,1073(1stCir. `  1997).Wealsoreviewdenovothequestionofwhattypeof  @ transactionsconstitutebenefitsunder666.SeeUnitedStatesv.    Peery,977F.2d1230,1233n.2(8thCir.1992)("[D]etermining `  whethersection666appliestoPeery'sconductisaquestionof   law.").Finally,wereviewdenovothequestionofwhetherthe 0  GovernmentpresentedsufficientevidenceattrialtoproveHealth  Servicesinfactreceivedbenefitsunder666,viewingthe P evidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheGovernment.SeeUnited 0 Statesv.OteroMendez,273F.3d46,50(1stCir.2001);United p Statesv.Fischer,168F.3d1273,1276n.7(11thCir.1999),aff'd P Fischerv.UnitedStates,529U.S.667(2000);UnitedStatesv.  Copeland,143F.3d1439,1442(11thCir.1998).  p    ` AppellantsconcedeHealthServicesreceivedfederal   benefits beginningin1991.Thequestionwemustansweriswhether @" HealthServices'receiptoffederalmoniesbetween1989and1991  $ constitutedreceiptoffederalbenefits.Threedistinct `"& transactionsareatissue.First,onJanuary13,1989,Health #@( Servicesdepositedtwocheckstotaling$11,862.14fromtheCenters % * forDiseaseControl,afederalagency.TheCentersforDisease '`", ControlhadcontractedwiththeMunicipalitytotestmembersofthe (#. publicforAIDS,andtheMunicipalitysubcontractedtheworkto  HealthServices.HealthServiceswaspaiddirectlybytheCenters @ forDiseaseControl.TherewasevidenceHealthServicesreceived   another$11,124.03fromtheCentersforDiseaseControlinAugust `  1989forsimilarwork.Second,HealthServicesreceived$70,680in  @ 1989,and$99,729in1990,tooperateanassessmentand    interventioncenterfordrugaddicts.Thismoneycamefromthe `  Municipality.TheMunicipalityinturnhadreceiveditfromthe   Commonwealth,whichhadreceiveditasagrantfromtheNational 0  InstituteonDrugAbuse(theInstitute),afederalagency.Third,  onJanuary10,1989,HealthServicesreceived$100,000forworkon P amassmediaeducationprojectonAIDS.Althoughthismoneywas 0 paidbytheMunicipality,therewastestimonyfromamunicipal p officialthatthispaymenthaditssourceinfederalfunds,which P passedthroughthePuertoRicoDepartmentofHealthtothe  Municipality.  p    ` TheSupremeCourtrecentlyaddressedtheissueofwhat   constitutesreceiptofbenefitsunder666in Fischerv.United @" States,529U.S.667(2000).8 #  6      ׀Inthatcase,theCourtconcluded  $ that666"coversfraudperpetratedonorganizationsparticipating `"& intheMedicareprogram."Id.at669.TheCourtreachedthis #@( conclusionbecausethe"natureandpurposesoftheMedicare % * program,"id.at671,indicatedpaymentsweremade"forsignificant  andsubstantialreasonsinadditiontocompensationor @ reimbursement,"suchasassisting"thehospitalinmakingavailable   andmaintainingacertainlevelandqualityofmedicalcare,allin `  theinterestofboththehospitalandthegreatercommunity,"id.  @ at67980.TheCourtstatedthattheterm"benefits"isusedin    thestatuteinitsordinarysense,id.at677,andsincethe `  hospitalsthemselvesderivesignificantadvantagefrom   participatinginMedicare,theycouldbesaidtobederiving 0  benefitswithinthemeaningof666,"astatutewehavedescribed  as'expansive,''bothastothe[conduct]forbiddenandthe P activitiescovered,'"id.at678(quotingSalinasv.UnitedStates, 0 522U.S.52,56(1997)).TheCourtsawthisconclusionas p consistentwiththelanguageofthestatute,which"indicatesthat P Congressviewedmanyfederalassistanceprogramsasproviding  benefitstoparticipatingorganizations,"aswellas"Congress'  p expansive,unambiguousintenttoensuretheintegrityof   organizationsparticipatinginfederalassistanceprograms."Id. @" at678.TheCourtsetoutthefollowingtest:  $ 8  Todeterminewhetheranorganizationparticipatingina `"& federalassistanceprogramreceives"benefits,"an (#x' examinationmustbeundertakenoftheprogram's #@( structure,operation,andpurpose.Theinquiryshould $ ) examinetheconditionsunderwhichtheorganization % * receivesthefederalpayments.Theanswercoulddepend, H&!+ asitdoeshere,onwhethertherecipient'sown '`", operationsareoneofthereasonsformaintainingthe '(#- program._W(#.   Id.at681. 0*%0    ` TheCourtrejectedthenotionthatMedicarepaymentsmade +'2 tothehospitalswerecompensationofthetypeexcludedby  666(c).$ #  7      ׀Inadditiontothefactthatmoniespaidincludedsumsto @ enhancethehospitalsthemselves,Medicareplacedconditionson   recipienthospitals,"unlikethecaseofacontractorwhomthe `  Governmentdoesnotregulateorassistforlongtermobjectivesor  @ forsignificantpurposesbeyondperformanceofanimmediate    transaction."Id.at680.% #  8      ׀TheCourtalsorejectedthecontention `  thatsincetheprimarybeneficiaryofMedicarewastheindividual   patient,thehospitalscouldnotalsobesaidtohavereceiveda 0  benefitundertheprogram.Id.at677.Finally,theCourtrefused  toendorsethenotionthatallthatwasrequiredforfundsto P constitutebenefitsunder666wastoestablishthattheycame 0 fromafederalprogram.Id.     ` WhenweapplyFischertothiscase,weconclude,andthe @ jurysupportablycouldhavesofound,thattheInstitutepayments   thatHealthServicesreceivedconstitutedbenefits. #  9      The `  Institute  #  10      ׀moniesinthiscasewereoriginallydisbursedundera  @ granttothePuertoRicoDepartmentofAntiAddictionServices.    AntiAddictionServicesinturnmadeagrantofaportionofthese `  fundstotheMunicipality,whichthenpaidHealthServices. Dub;n   acknowledgesthismoneywas"clearlyagrantintendedtoassist 0  AIDSpatientsinPuertoRico,"and"mayalsohavebeenintendedto  assisttheCommonwealthortheMunicipalityinthatitenabled P thesegovernmententitiestoassistcitizenswithdrugaddictions." 0  Dub;nquestions,however,"whethertheprogramunderwhichthis p moneywaspaidwasintendedtoaidorpromotethewellbeingof P [HealthServices]."WepointoutthattheSupremeCourtinFischer  onlysaidthat"[t]heanswer[tothequestionofwhetherthereare  p federalbenefitsunder666]coulddepend...onwhetherthe   recipient'sownoperationsareoneofthereasonsformaintaining @" theprogram....Othercasesmaypresentquestionsrequiring  $ furtherexaminationandelaborationoftheterm'benefits.'"529  U.S.at68182(emphasisadded). @    ` OneoftheInstitute'sgoalsinmakinggrantsisto   "insurecareofgoodquality,ingeneralcommunityfacilities."21 `  U.S.C.1177(f).( #  11      ׀ UnderitscontractwiththeMunicipality,  @ HealthServiceswas"theexclusivesourceofAIDScounselingand    professionalservicesinSanJuan...supplyingAIDSservices `  underafederallyfinancedprogram."Dub;nOtero,No.97091,slip   op.at10./ #  12      ׀Therefore,theInstitutewouldnaturallyintendits 0  moniestoassistHealthServicesinprovidingAIDScare,muchas  Medicaremoniesassisthospitalsinprovidingpatientcare. @    ` ItmakesnodifferencethatHealthServicesreceivedthis   moneyindirectly.X7YXX X7YԀItisnowwellestablishedthat# X7YXXX7Yk#benefitsunder `  666arenotlimitedsolelytoprimarytargetrecipientsor  @ beneficiaries.SeeFischer,168F.3dat1278("[T]heplain    languageof666(b)doesnotdistinguishbetweenanorganization `  ...thatreceives'benefits'directlyunderafederalprogramand   anorganization...thatreceives'benefits'asanassigneeunder 0  afederalprogram.");cf.Fischer,529U.S.at67778("Medicare  operateswithapurposeanddesignaboveandbeyondpointofsale P patientcare.").HealthServices'contractwiththeMunicipality 0 contemplatedarelationshipbetweenHealthServicesandtheUnited p StatesGovernment,andthoseoperatingfederalassistanceprograms P liketheInstitutearewellawarethatrecipientsofprogramfunds  usesubgrantsandsubcontractstofurthereffectuatetheprogram's  p goals.X7YXX X7YLawrencePoole,agrantsmanagerfortheUnitedStates   DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,# X7YXXX7Yo#"`  #  13      X7YXX X7YԀtestifiedthat"agrant @" award[that]isissuedbyanagencycouldanddoesinfact  translateintosubcontractsorsubgranteerelationshipswithother @ organizations." PoolefurthertestifiedthatHealthServices   receivedfederalfundingasasubgranteefortheyearsof1988and `  1989,andthat"therequirementsforeachsubgranteeorsubcontract  @ relationshiparesubjecttothesamerequirementsfor    accountabilityoffederalfundsandtermsoftheawardasthe `  actualgranteerecipientoffederalfunds." # X7YXXX7Yp# Weconcludethatif   thepaymentsinFischerwere"madenotsimplytoreimburse,"529 0  U.S.at679,thenneitherwerethepaymentshere.    III. P t   ` Dub;nandGaribarguethatthedistrictcourterredin 0 denyingtheirmotionsforacquittalforinsufficientevidence. p Pointingtothefactthattheindictmentchargedthemwith P conspiringtostealfromHealthServices,theyassertthe  Governmentdidnotprovethecrucialelementoflackofconsentof  p thecorporation.TheyciteUnitedStatesv.Burbankforthe   propositionthattherecanbenotheftwhere"[n]oevidence[is] @" presentedbythegovernmenttoshowthatthetransactionswerenot  $ authorizedbythecorporation."848F.2d453,454(4thCir. `"& 1988).5 #  14      ׀TheycontendHealthServices'shareholdersandboardof #@( directorsconsentedtothetransactionsatissueandtherefore  therewasnotheft. @    ` Inreviewingachallengetothesufficiencyofthe   evidence,"[t]heverdictofajurymustbesustainedifthereis `  substantialevidence,takingtheviewmostfavorabletothe  @ Government,tosupportit."Glasserv.UnitedStates,315U.S.60,    80(1942);seeUnitedStatesv.MenaRobles,4F.3d1026,1031 `  (1stCir.1993)(statingthattheissueinasufficiencychallenge   is"whethertheevidenceandreasonableinferencestherefrom,taken 0  asawholeandinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,  wouldallowarationaljurytodeterminebeyondareasonabledoubt P thatthedefendantswereguiltyascharged"). 0    ` TheGovernmentpresentedevidencethatbetween1987and p May1991Dub;nreceived$10,000permonthfromHealthServicesas P alegalretainer,althoughHealthServices'boardofdirectorshad  authorizedaretainerofonly$5,000.Someonehadtamperedwith  p theoriginalboardminutestoshowauthorizationforamonthly   retainerof$10,000,allowingDub;ntofunneltheadditional$5,000 @" permonthtoKour.Specifically,thedirectoroftheword  $ processingcenterwheretheminutesweretranscribedtestifiedthat `"& theoriginalpageoftheminutessettingforththeretaineras #@( $5,000wasreplacedinanothersetofminuteswithapageshowing  theretaineras$10,000. Thepageshowingtheretaineras$10,000 @ wasadifferentconsistencythantherestoftheminutesandwas   notproducedatthesamewordprocessingcenter.Corcinotestified `  theadditional$5,000wasgoingtoKourtopayKour'shomerent  @ andcreditcardbills.CorcinofurthertestifiedthatKourcould    notbeonHealthServices'payrollbecauseKourwasundercontract `  withtheHarvardInstituteforInternationalDevelopment,whichin   turnhadacontractdirectlywiththeMunicipalityofSanJuan.  0      ` TheGovernmentalsopresentedevidencethatGarib  employedapersonalhousekeeper,aswellasasecretaryforhis P privatepractice,usingHealthServices'money.Corcino,Health 0 Services'comptroller,testifiedthatforalongtimehewasnot p awarethatHealthServiceswaspayingforaprivatesecretaryand P personalhousekeeperforGarib,andthatinhisopinionsuch  paymentsconstitutedanunauthorizeddiversionofHealthServices  p fundsforpersonaluse.Thehousekeepertestifiedthatthe   signatureonthetimesheetsbearinghernamewasnothers.The @" secretarytestifiedthatwhileshewaspaidbyHealthServices,  $ ninetyninepercentofhertimewasspentontasksrelatedto `"& Garib'sprivatepractice. #@(    ` Finally,therewasevidenceattrialthatAppellantsalso % * usedHealthServicesassetstopurchasepoliticalsupport,which '`", HealthServiceswasdependentuponforitsfunding.BeforetheSan (#. Juanmayoralelectionof1988,Gariballegedlyloaneda$19,000 0*%0 videocameratooneofthecandidates,JoseGranadosNavedo.The +'2 camerahadbeenpurchasedwithaHealthServicescheck.Gariband  KourlatermetwithGranadostodiscussHealthServicesproviding @ otherfinancialsupportforhiscampaign.      ` Togeneratemorecash,Garib,Sotomayor,andCorcinothen `  metwithAntonioFernandez,theownerofIMAProductions,and  @ presentedhimaHealthServicescheckmadeouttoIMAintheamount    of$60,000andsignedbyGaribandSotomayor.Onlysomeof this `  moneywasintendedtopayforservicesperformedbyIMA . Garib @  askedFernandeztoendorsethecheckandcashitorelsewrite   separateIMAcheckspayabletootherpersonswhohadnotrendered ` servicessoGaribcouldrecovertheexcessincash.Garib  explainedHealthServiceshadanurgentneedofcashtomake 0 certainpaymentsthatitcouldnotmakebycompanycheck.When  Fernandezrefusedtoparticipate,Garibstatedthathehadsolved P theprobleminanotherway.GariblatermetwithGranadosandgave 0 himaboxcontainingmorethan$100,000incash. p    ` Granadoslosttheelection.Afterthenewadministration P  assumedoffice,paymentsontheAIDScontractweredelayed.Kour " latertoldCorcinothathehadtakencareoftheproblemby  !p$ arrangingfor$5,000amonthtobepaidtothecandidatewhohad "& wontheelection,MayorHectorLuisAcevedo,and$5,000tothe @$( DirectoroftheHealthDepartmentoftheMunicipality,Dr.Freddie % !* Borras.RegularpaymentsbytheMunicipalityontheAIDScontract `'", thenresumed.The$10,000monthlypaymentswereraisedbycashing (@$. HealthServiceschecksissuedtopersonswhohadperformedno *%0 services.SeveralofthesechecksweresignedbyGaribandDub;n. ,`'2 Dub;n'slawfirmwasalsoinvolvedincashingaseriesofthese  HealthServiceschecksatDub;n'sdirection,withatleastoneof @ thechecksbeingissuedtoDub;n'sson,whohadperformedno   services.Towardtheendof1990Dub;ntoldCorcino,"Iamnot `  goingtosignforthat[expletive]anylonger."Hedidnot,  @ however,objecttothecontinueddiversionofthefunds.       ` Viewingthisevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothe `  Government,aswemust,weconcludethatarationaljurycouldfind   beyondareasonabledoubtthatDub;nandGaribwereparticipantsin 0  aconspiracytouseHealthServicesfundstopaypersonalexpenses  andmakepoliticalpayoffsaschargedintheindictment.The P evidenceofinformalalterationsoftheboardminutesasameansto 0 funnelfundstoKour,oftheapparentuseofaforgedsignatureto p divertHealthServices'fundstopayforGarib'spersonal P housekeeper,oftheuseofaHealthServices'employeetodowork  almostexclusivelyforGarib'sprivatepractice,andofthe  p clandestineeffortstoturnHealthServiceschecksintocashare   allevidencefromwhichajurycouldfindthatdefendants"without @" validauthority"embezzled,stole,orobtainedbyfraudmoneyor  $ property.#X7YXX X7Y `"&  # X7YXX#X7YB#   @  @` IV. #@(    ` Dub;nandGaribchallengeanumberofthedistrict % * court'sdecisionsregardingjuryinstructions.Weaddresseachin '`", turn,recognizingthatwhenallegederrorsinvolveparticular (#. instructions'adequacyinexplainingthelaw,astheydohere, 0*%0 "[w]emustlookattheentirecharge,inlightoftheevidence,and +'2 determinewhether,takenaswhole,thecourt'sinstructionsfairly  andadequatelysubmittedtheissuesinthecasetothejury." @ UnitedStatesv.Woodward,149F.3d46,69(1stCir.1998).     A. `     ` Thedistrictcourtdenieddefendants'requestedjury  @ instructions,includinginstructionswhichrequiredtheGovernment    toprovethattheactionsofdefendantsweredesignedto"cheat `  HealthServices,"thatHealthServiceswasthe"victim,"andthat   authorizationbyHealthServiceswasthusadefense.  #  15      ׀Instead,the 0  districtcourtinstructedthejurythatitwassufficienttofind  thatthefundsatissuewere"somethingofvalueinexcessof P $5,000inconnectionwithfederalfunding"and"underthecare, 0 custodyorcontrol"ofHealthServices.  p    ` Weconcludethedistrictcourtdidnoterrinits P instructionstothejury.Thedistrictcourtinstructedthattheft   involvedtakingpropertywithoutauthorityandthatembezzlement  p involvedtakingpropertyunderone'scontrolbelongingtoanother., #  16      ׀   Itsfurtherinstructionsthattherewasacrimeifthemoneyor @ propertystolen"wasownedbyorwasunderthecare,custody,or   controlof[HealthServices],"wasproperinlightofour `  discussionaboveinPartI.Theinstructionstakenasawhole  @ fairlyandadequatelyinformedthejuryoftheapplicablelaw.      B. `       ` Dub;nandGaribarguethedistrictcourterredby   refusingtoinstructthejuryontherequesteddefinitionof 0  federalbenefits.Wehavealreadysetouttheapplicablelawasto  whatconstitutesfederalbenefitsunder666inPartIIabove. P    ` Dub;nandGaribrequestedthefollowinginstructions:(1) 0 Noteverypaymentbythefederalgovernmenttoanorganization p constitutesfederal"benefits"asrequiredbythestatute;(2) P Federalmoneypaidtoaprivatecorporationaspaymentoffeesfor  servicesalreadyrenderedbythecorporationdoesnotqualifyas  p federalbenefits;(3)Paymentsmadebythefederalgovernmenttoa  privatecorporationaspartofanordinarycommercialtransaction @ donotqualifyasfederalbenefits;(4)Moneypaidtoacorporation   isafederalbenefitifthecorporationwasrequiredto `  "administer"themoneyunderanagreementwiththegovernmentorto  @ "disburse"themoneytoothers. Thedistrictcourt,meanwhile,    trackedthestatutorylanguageininstructingthejury.- #  17      ׀Cf. `  UnitedStatesv.Paradies,98F.3d1266,1289(11thCir.1996)   (concludingtherewasnoplainerrorindistrictcourt'sfailureto 0  instructonanelementof666,wheretheinstructions"tracked  thestatutoryrequirements"andtheevidenceattrialwas P sufficientforajurytofindtheelementinquestionsatisfied)..  #  18       0    ` Weconcludethefirstthreeoftherequestedinstructions  wereadequatelycoveredbythedistrictcourtwhenitinstructed @ thejurythatX7YXX X7Y"legitimate,valid,bonafidesalary,wages,fees,or   othercompensationpaidorexpensespaidorreimbursedinthe `  ordinarycourseofbusiness"didnotconstitutebenefits. # X7YXXX7Y\# Asto  @ thefourthrequestedinstruction,Dub;nandGaribdirectustono    authoritysupportingsuchadefinitionoffederalbenefitsunder `  666,nordowebelievethatsuchisacompletestatementofthelaw   inthisrespect.1 #  19      ׀Wecannotconcludethatthereiserrorin 0  refusinganofferedinstructionwherewearelefttospeculateas  toanappellant'slegalunderpinningfortheproposedinstruction. P OnemayarguethatUnitedStatesv.Rooney,986F.2d31(2dCir. 0 1993),providessomesupport.InthatcasetheSecondCircuit p statedthat"[i]neachofthecases[enumeratedbytheSenate P Reporttoillustratesituations666isintendedtoinclude],the  organization...providedtheFederalgovernmentwithaservice  p byadministeringagovernmentprogram."Id.at35Butthat   discussionoflegislativehistorywasdictum,sincethecourtthere @" hadalreadyconcludedthatbenefitswerepresentonthebasisof  $ 666'sstatutorylanguage.Id.at34.Moreimportantly, acourt's `"& refusaltoinstructinthelanguageofanappellateopiniondoes @$( notjustifyreversal.SeeKentv.Smith,404F.2d241,244(2d  Cir.1968)("[I]tisgenerallynothelpfultotakequotationsfrom @ theopinionsofappellatecourts,thatwereneverintendedtobe   usedasinstructionstojuries,andsubmittheseintheformof `  requeststocharge.").  @    ` WeareawarethattheSupremeCourtinFischerstated    that"[t]odeterminewhetheranorganizationparticipatingina `  federalassistanceprogramreceives'benefits,'anexaminationmust   beundertakenoftheprogram'sstructure,operation,andpurpose." 0  529U.S.at681.Therecordbeforeusdemonstratesthatevidence  wasbeforethejuryrelevanttotheseissues,andthedistrict P court,inrulingonthemotionforacquittal,expresslyanalyzed 0 theseissues. #  20       Thedistrictcourtdidnoterrininstructingthe p juryinthisrespect.     C. @      ` Dub;nandGaribarguethatthedistrictcourterredby   refusingtoinstructthejurythatitcouldonlyreturnaverdict `  ofguiltyonthebasisofconductoccurringafterHealthServices  @ firstreceivedfederalbenefits.Therequestedinstructionstated:    8  Anexpenditurethatoccurredbefore[HealthServices] `  everreceivedanyfederalbenefitsisnotaviolationof (  18U.S.C.section666.Thegovernmentmustprovethat   thedefendantagreedtoanunauthorizedexpenditureor h  expendituresthatoccurredafter[HealthServices] 0  receivedfederalbenefits.Therefore,ifthedefendant H  agreedonlytoanexpenditureorexpendituresoccurring  beforeHealthServicesreceivedanyfederalbenefits,you  mustfindthedefendantnotguiltyofcount1.P    Thedistrictcourtdeniedthisrequest. 0    ` Therelevantstatutorylanguagestates:"[T]he p circumstance[thatmustexistfortheretobeafederalcrime]is P thattheorganization...receives,inanyoneyearperiod,  benefitsinexcessof$10,000underaFederalprograminvolvinga  p grant,contract,subsidy,loan,guarantee,insurance,orotherform   ofFederalassistance."666(b).Thestatutefurtherdefines @" oneyearperiodas"acontinuousperiodthatcommencesnoearlier  $ thantwelvemonthsbeforethecommissionoftheoffenseorthat `"& endsnolaterthantwelvemonthsafterthecommissionofthe #@( offense.Suchperiodmayincludetimebothbeforeandafterthe % * commissionoftheoffense."666(b)(5). '`",    ` Garibnowarguestheinstructiongivenbythedistrict (#. courtallowedthejurytoreturnaguiltyverdictonthebasisof  conductoccurringbeforeHealthServicesreceivedanyfederalmoney @ atall,muchlessfederalbenefits.2 #  21      ׀Forinstance,thejurycould   havefoundGaribguiltyonthebasisofconductoccurringonlyin `  1988(beforeHealthServicesreceivedanyfederalmonies),added  @ twelvemonthstogetinto1989(whenHealthServicesreceivedover    $10,000infederalfunds),andthussatisfiedtheinstruction. `  Garibarguesfederallycriminalizinghis1988conductinthatway   wouldexceedthegovernment's authorityundertheSpendingClause 0  oftheUnitedStatesConstitution,X7YXX X7YU.S.Const.art.I,8,cl.1.# X7YXXX7Y#Ԁ  SeeFischer,529U.S.at689(Thomas,J.,dissenting)("Wehave P heldthatthespendingpowerrequires,atleast,thattheexercise 0 offederalpowerberelated'tothefederalinterestinparticular p nationalprojectsorprograms.'")(quotingSouthDakotav.Dole, P 483U.S.203,207(1987)) ;UnitedStatesv.Zwick,199F.3d672,  687(3dCir.1999)("Applying666tooffenseconduct,absent  p evidenceofanyfederalinterest,wouldappeartobean   unconstitutionalexerciseofpowerundertheSpendingClause."). @"    ` Insupportofhiscontentionthatthejurycouldhave  $ foundhimguiltybasedsolelyon1988conduct,Garibpointstothe `"& Government'sargumenttothejuryinsummation: #@( 8  AndyouwillrecallthatMr.Pooletestifiedthaton % * January10of1989,federalfundswerereceivedthrough H&!+ thatgrant.Andyouwillrecallthatthatgrantwasin '`", excessof$10,000.Andwhyisthatdateimportant?  Because,asthejudgewillinstructyouonwhatthelaw x isforfederalprogramfraud,thegovernmenthastoprove @ that$10,000werereceivedinanyonecalender[sic]year X periodeitherbeforeorafterthecommissionofthe   offense.AndifyoutakethedateofJanuary10thof  1989andgobackoneyear,ittakesyoutoJanuary10th `  of1988,closetothedateonwhich[HealthServices]was ( x created. @    GaribandDub;nrequestedaspecialverdictthatwouldhave    requiredthejurytoidentifywhatconductitwasbasingits `  verdicton,buttheGovernmentobjected,andthedistrictcourtdid   notsubmitaspecialverdictform.  0     ` TheGovernmentrespondsthattheindictmentchargeda  conspiracybeginningin1989andthatthejurywasinstructed P accordingly.Itarguesthe1988conductwasonlypresentedtoshow 0 theexistenceofaconspiracy.Itfurtherarguesthatevenif1988 p conductwasabasisforthejury'sverdict,thereinfactwas P federalinterestintheformofpendingcontracts.Finally,the  Governmentarguesanyerrorwasharmlessbecausethejuryfound  p thataconspiracyexisted,thatDub;n'sconductoccurredin1989,   andthatGarib,asacoconspirator,wasresponsibleforthat @" conduct.   $    ` Weconcludetherewasnoerror.Tobeginwith,the `"& instructionrequestedbyDub;nandGaribwasnotacorrect #@( statementofthelaw,becausewhattheGovernmenthadtoprovewas % * thatthedefendantsagreedtojoinaconspiracytostealfrom '`", HealthServicesandthatanovertactinfurtheranceofthat (#. conspiracyoccurredafter666becameapplicable.Therequested 0*%0 languagewassimplytoonarrow. Mostimportantly,however,the +'2 districtcourt'sinstructionsastothescopeoftheindictment  properlylimitedthejury: @ 8  Solet'snowtalkaboutconspiracy.Foryoutofinda   defendantguiltyofconspiracy,youmustbeconvinced  thatthegovernmenthasprovedeachofthefollowing `  elementsbeyondareasonabledoubt.( x   8   `  First,thatbetweeninoraboutJanuaryof1989  @ uptoandincludingFebruaryof1994,theagreement    specifiedintheindictmentandnotsomeotheragreement    oragreementsexistedbetweenatleasttwoofthe H   defendantschargedintheindictment;andsecond,that `  thedefendantsLuisDubonandJorgeGaribeachwillfully (  joinedinthatagreement;andthirdthatatleastoneof   theconspiratorscommittedatleastoneovertactinthe h  an[sic]efforttofurtherthepurposeoftheconspiracy.0     (Emphasisadded.)     ` AsfortheGovernment'sargumenttothejuryin P summation,itwasnotthesubjectofatimelyobjectionandwewill 0 notsayitwasplainerrortopermitit.& #  22      SeeChutev.Sears p RoebuckandCo.,143F.3d629,630(1stCir.1998)("[T]hecourtof P appealswillconsideraforfeitedobjectiononlyifanerrorwas  committed,iftheerrorwas'plain'(i.e.clearundercurrentlaw),  p iftheerrorwasprejudicial,andifreviewisneededtopreventa   miscarriageofjustice.")(citingUnitedStatesv.Olano,507U.S. @" 725,73337(1993)).    V. @ i   ` Garibchallengeshisperjuryconviction.See18U.S.C.   1623(imposingpunishmentonanyonewho,underoathinany `  proceedingbeforeanygrandjury,knowinglymakesanyfalse  @ materialdeclaration).Garib'sperjurychargestemsfromtestimony    hegavebeforethegrandjury.Aspartofthattestimonyhedenied `  givingpoliticalcontributions,orloaningavideocamera,to   Granados.HealsodeniedaskingFernandeztosigna$60,000check 0  soGaribcouldgeneratecash. Garibnowargueshewasdenieda  fairtrialonhisperjurychargefortworeasons. First,heargues P thatbyimproperlyinstructingthejuryasto666's"oneyear 0 period"andHealthServices'authorizationdefense,thecourt p effectivelydirectedaverdictastomateriality.Becausewehave P concludedabovethatthedistrictcourt'sinstructionsonthese  matterswerenotimproper,Garib'sargumentonthisfirstpoint  p mustfail.Second,Garibarguesthedistrictcourt'sinstructions   astoperjuryremovedtheGovernment'sburdenofprovingthe @" falsityofthestatementsatissue.Thedistrictcourtinstructed  $ thejurythat: `"& 8  Inordertosustainitsburdenofproofforthepurpose #@( ofmakingafalsedeclarationbeforethefederalgrand $ ) juryaschargedinCountThirtyfiveoftheindictment, % * thegovernmentmustprovethefollowingfouressential H&!+ elementsbeyondareasonabledoubt.One,thatthe '`", defendantJorgeGaribgavetestimonyunderoathbeforea '(#- federalgrandjury;numbertwo,thatthedefendantJorge (#. Garibmadethefalsematerialstatementasdetailedin h)$/ theindictmentduringthattestimony;three,the 0*%0 defendantJorgeGaribknewthatthestatementswerefalse *H&1 whenhegavethetestimony;andfour,thatthestatement +'2 orrepresentationwasmaterial,meaningthatithada ,'3 naturaltendencytoinfluenceorwascapableof  influencingadecisionoranaction,whetherornotit x actuallyinfluencedordeceivedanyone.Ialsoinstruct @ youthattruthisadefensetoperjury.X    (Emphasisadded.)Weseenoerrorinthedistrictcourt's  instructionsbecausetheyadequatelycoveredtheGovernment's ( x burdenofproof. SeeUnitedStatesv.Watson,623F.2d1198,1204    (7thCir.1980)(upholdingsimilarinstruction).+ #  23       H      @ VI. (     ` Finally,Dub;nandGaribchallengethemakeupoftheir h  juryandtheappointmentoftheinterimUnitedStatesAttorney. H    A.     ` Dub;nandGaribarguethattheirright,ascriminal h defendants,toapetitjuryselectedfromafaircrosssectionof  thecommunity,seeTaylorv.Louisiana,419U.S.522,528(1975) 8 ("theselectionofapetitjuryfromarepresentativecrosssection  ofthecommunityisanessentialcomponentoftheSixthAmendment X righttoajurytrial")(citingalso28U.S.C.1861),isdenied 8 inPuertoRicobytheexclusionofpotentialjurorswhoarenot x! proficientinEnglishanexclusionwhichtheyallege  X# systematicallyexcludesthepoor.Wepreviouslyheldasimilar !% challengetobeunavailinginUnitedStatesv.Benmuhar,658F.2d (#x' 14(1stCir.1981).Dub;nandGaribseektodistinguishBenmuhar $ ) ashavingbeendecidedinpartupontheabsenceofanyviable  alternative,whileheretheysuggestedsimultaneoustranslation. @ However,westatedinUnitedStatesv.FloresRivera,thatitis   "theoverwhelmingnationalinterestservedbytheuseofEnglishin `  aUnitedStatescourt,"which"justifiesconductingproceedingsin  @ theDistrictofPuertoRicoinEnglishandrequiringjurorstobe    proficientinthatlanguage."56F.3d319,326(1stCir.1995) `  (quotingUnitedStatesv.AponteSuarez,905F.2d483,492(1st   Cir.1990)).Thisjustificationisindependentofthepresenceor 0  lackofanyviablealternatives.Accordingly,wereject  Appellants'contention. P   B. 0    ` Dub;nandGaribchallengetheappointmentofinterim p UnitedStatesAttorneyGuillermoGilasstatutorilyand P constitutionallydefective.AsAppellantsthemselvesrecognize,  thisissuehasbeendefinitivelyresolvedintheGovernment's  p favor.UnitedStatesv.Hilario,218F.3d19,22(1stCir.2000).       @ VII. @"      ` Accordingly,weaffirm.