⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Anderson and Warnock, an appeal from a public-corruption trial in Mississippi. Warnock was a private contractor, and Cleveland Anderson served on the Canton Municipal Utilities board. Prosecutors alleged that Warnock provided officials money and other benefits to secure contracts, including work on sewer problems. The government also said that payments reached Anderson through a purported campaign-manager job for which no actual work was done. Warnock will dispute that there was a corrupt bargain and point to legitimate business reasons for the contracts. A jury convicted both men, who now challenge their convictions. One key distinction is between a bribe and a gratuity. Under Snyder, Section six sixty-six punishes bribery involving state or local officials, not merely an unpromised thank-you gift after an official act. Payment after the act can still be a bribe if it was promised as part of a corrupt agreement beforehand. Agreement timing matters, not just payment timing. That ruling concerns this statute; it is not a declaration that every gift is lawful. Another issue is Anderson's failed guilty plea: after three hearings, the trial court refused to accept it. Keep those plea proceedings separate from Warnock's challenge to the proof and instructions on a corrupt exchange.

United States v. Anderson and Warnock (No. 25-60424) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.