United States v. Askia, No. 17-1515 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for misappropriating over $5000 in federal grant funds that were distributed to the organization that he managed to subsidize an after-school program for children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(A). The Eighth Circuit held that section 666(a)(1)(A) is not a continuing offense and a defendant may not be charged for a section 666(a)(1)(A) offense committed outside the five-year statute of limitations. However, like the defendant in this case, when a defendant has committed the offense both within and outside the limitations period, he may be charged with violations committed within the limitations period. The court held that any error in admitting evidence related to expenditures outside the limitations period did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Furthermore, there was no error in admitting a purported grant application into evidence; any error regarding the admission of hearsay at a pre-trial release proceeding was moot; and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
Court Description: Melloy, Author, with Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 666(a)(1)(A) is not a continuing offense and a defendant may not be charged for a Section 666(a)(1)(A) offense committed outside the five-year statute of limitations; however, as in this case, when a defendant has committed the offense both within and outside the limitations period, he may be charged with violations committed within the limitations period; the government showed at least four of defendant's improper expenditures occurred within the limitations period and totaled more than $5,000, the jurisdictional amount; as defendant did not challenge the admission of evidence related to expenditures outside the limitations period, the introduction of the evidence is reviewed for plain error, and the court could not say that a the supposed error in admitting the evidence seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings; no error in admitting a purported grant application into evidence; any error concerning admission of hearsay at a pre-trial release proceeding was moot; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.