The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the conviction and 87-month sentence of Michael Courtney Shirley for conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud and honest services wire fraud in a decision filed Feb. 6, 2026.
Shirley raised multiple challenges to his conviction stemming from criminal charges filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The case, consolidated under appeal numbers 24-10672 and 24-10937, originated from district court docket number 6:22-cr-00123-GAP-DCI-1.
According to the appeals court opinion, Shirley challenged his conviction on several grounds. First, he questioned the sufficiency of the evidence against him. Second, he raised numerous objections to the district court's jury instructions, including that the jury instruction's definition of "public official" violated Supreme Court precedent and constructively amended the indictment.
The case involves honest services wire fraud, a federal crime that occurs when someone uses wire communications as part of a scheme to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. This type of fraud typically involves public officials who breach their duty of loyalty to those they serve, often through bribery or kickback schemes.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision was issued per curiam, meaning it was decided by the court as a whole rather than authored by a single judge. The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Newsom and Brasher, along with District Judge Huck sitting by designation.
Shirley's challenge to the sufficiency of evidence represents a common appellate strategy in criminal cases. When defendants argue insufficient evidence, they contend that no reasonable jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented at trial. Courts review such challenges under a highly deferential standard, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
The defendant's second major challenge focused on jury instructions, particularly the definition of "public official." This issue has gained increased attention in federal corruption cases following several Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed the scope of federal anti-corruption statutes. The Supreme Court has emphasized that federal prosecutors must clearly establish that defendants had duties as public officials and that their conduct violated those specific duties.
Jury instruction challenges often center on whether the trial court properly explained complex legal concepts to jurors. In honest services fraud cases, courts must carefully define terms like "public official," "honest services," and the specific duties allegedly breached. Shirley apparently argued that the district court's instruction on "public official" violated Supreme Court precedent and effectively changed the charges against him through what's known as constructive amendment.
Constructive amendment occurs when jury instructions effectively alter the essential elements of the offense charged in the indictment. This represents a serious constitutional violation because defendants have the right to know the specific charges against them and to be tried only on those charges approved by a grand jury.
The Middle District of Florida, where the original case was prosecuted, handles numerous federal criminal matters across central Florida. Federal prosecutors in the district regularly pursue honest services fraud cases involving local and state officials accused of corruption.
The decision was marked "Not for Publication," indicating it will have limited precedential value. Unpublished opinions typically address fact-specific issues or apply well-established legal principles without breaking new ground. While such decisions are binding on the parties involved, they generally cannot be cited as precedent in other cases within the circuit.
Shirley's 87-month sentence falls within the range typically seen for honest services fraud convictions, which can vary significantly based on factors including the amount of money involved, the defendant's role in the scheme, and any cooperation with authorities. Federal sentencing guidelines provide structured frameworks for determining appropriate punishment in such cases.
The consolidation of multiple appeal numbers suggests the case may have involved related charges or co-defendants whose appeals were handled together for judicial efficiency. Federal courts routinely consolidate related appeals to avoid duplicative proceedings and ensure consistent outcomes.
Honest services fraud prosecutions have evolved significantly over the past decade following Supreme Court decisions requiring prosecutors to prove more specific elements of corruption. The Court has emphasized that federal anti-corruption statutes must be applied with precision to avoid criminalizing conduct that might be better addressed through state law or administrative remedies.
The Eleventh Circuit's affirmance means Shirley's conviction and sentence stand unless he successfully petitions for Supreme Court review. The high court accepts only a small percentage of cases for review, typically focusing on issues of national importance or conflicts between circuit courts.
This case reflects ongoing federal efforts to prosecute corruption involving public officials, an area that remains a priority for federal prosecutors across the country. The Department of Justice continues to emphasize public corruption cases as essential to maintaining public trust in government institutions.