Case Explained: United States v. Badoni

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 Docket: 1:23-CR-00473-KWR-1) The Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed on William Badoni for conspiring to bribe a public official and laundering proceeds, rejecting his challenges to two sentencing guideline enhancements. The court applied de novo review to legal conclusions and clear-error review to factual findings regarding the application of U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3) and § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G). First, the court held that the district court did not err in determining that the co-conspirator, Mr. Harry, was a “public official in a high-level decision-making or sensitive position.” The court reasoned that while the term “public official” is construed broadly to include individuals responsible for carrying out governmental programs, the enhancement applies if the individual holds a position of sensitivity or substantial influence over the decision-making process. Relying on factual findings that Harry could manipulate bids and persuade trustees, and citing commentary indicating that examples like prosecutors are not exhaustive, the court concluded Harry’s role was sufficiently sensitive to warrant the enhancement. Second, the court affirmed the finding that the benefit exceeded $250,000, a threshold triggering an enhancement under U.S.S.G. §§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) and 2C1.1(b)(2). The court explained that exact precision is not required for benefit calculations; a reasonable estimate suffices. The district court reasonably calculated the benefit by combining inflated change orders totaling over $333,000 and additional overcharges of approximately $20,000. The court rejected Badoni’s argument that these amounts should be reduced to account for services provided, noting that law enforcement testimony established the work was unnecessary and served only to enrich Badoni, citing *United States v. Hess* to support the conclusion that such costs do not offset fraudulent profits. As a practical consequence, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and Badoni’s sentence remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.