The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Ronnie Lee Goldy, a former county prosecutor who was found guilty on federal corruption charges including honest services wire fraud and violations of the Travel Act. The court issued its decision Jan. 8 in *United States v. Goldy*, rejecting the defendant's appeal of his criminal conviction.
The case stems from criminal charges filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington, where a jury convicted Goldy on charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346, the federal honest services wire fraud statute, as well as violations of the Travel Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1952. District Judge Danny C. Reeves presided over the original proceedings.
Goldy, who previously served as a county prosecutor, faced allegations that he engaged in conduct that deprived the public of his honest services in his official capacity. The honest services fraud statute is frequently used in public corruption cases to prosecute officials who breach their duty to provide honest services to the public they serve.
The Travel Act violations suggest that Goldy's alleged criminal conduct involved interstate activity, as the statute typically applies to cases where individuals use interstate facilities to promote unlawful activity. The specific details of the underlying criminal conduct were not fully disclosed in the available court documents.
The three-judge panel that decided the appeal consisted of Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Circuit Judges Alice Batchelder and Joan Larsen. Judge Batchelder authored the court's opinion affirming the conviction. The case was argued before the appeals court on Oct. 22, 2025.
Goldy was represented by attorneys from the Office of the Federal Public Defender, including Kaycee Berente and Kevin Schad from the Columbus, Ohio office. The government was represented by prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky, including Andrew Boone and Charles Wisdom Jr.
The Sixth Circuit's decision to recommend the case for publication under the court's Internal Operating Procedure 32.1(b) indicates that the ruling may establish precedent or address important legal issues relevant to future cases. Published opinions carry greater precedential weight than unpublished decisions and are more likely to be cited in subsequent litigation.
Public corruption cases involving elected officials and prosecutors often draw significant attention due to the breach of public trust they represent. When prosecutors, who are charged with upholding the law and ensuring justice, are themselves convicted of criminal conduct, it can undermine confidence in the criminal justice system.
The honest services fraud statute has been a key tool in federal prosecutors' efforts to combat public corruption. The law makes it a crime to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services through mail or wire fraud. In the context of public officials, this typically means using one's official position for personal gain rather than serving the public interest.
The Travel Act, enacted in 1961, prohibits travel in interstate commerce or use of interstate facilities with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate unlawful activity. It is often used in conjunction with other federal charges in corruption cases that have an interstate component.
The case represents another example of federal authorities' continued focus on prosecuting public corruption at all levels of government. The Department of Justice has made combating public corruption a priority, recognizing that such crimes erode public trust and undermine democratic institutions.
Goldy's conviction joins a long list of elected officials and public servants who have been held accountable under federal anti-corruption laws. The case also highlights the important role that federal courts play in reviewing criminal convictions on appeal to ensure that defendants receive fair trials and that legal standards are properly applied.
The affirmance by the Sixth Circuit means that Goldy's conviction stands, and he will face the consequences of his criminal conduct as determined by the district court. The decision also provides guidance for future cases involving similar allegations against public officials.
While the specific sentence imposed on Goldy was not detailed in the available documents, federal convictions for honest services fraud and Travel Act violations can carry significant penalties, including substantial prison time and financial restitution. The severity of the sentence would depend on various factors, including the scope of the criminal conduct and any applicable sentencing guidelines.
The case serves as a reminder that no public official is above the law and that the federal government has robust tools available to prosecute corruption at all levels of government. The Sixth Circuit's decision to affirm the conviction reinforces the principle that public officials must be held to the highest standards of conduct in their service to the public.