Filed: Jan. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2039 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Larry D. Casey, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: January 6, 2000 Filed: January 19, 2000 _ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Larry D. Casey challenges the sufficiency of his indictment after he was convicted on one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2039 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Larry D. Casey, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: January 6, 2000 Filed: January 19, 2000 _ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Larry D. Casey challenges the sufficiency of his indictment after he was convicted on one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U...
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-2039
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Eastern
v. * District of Arkansas.
*
Larry D. Casey, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: January 6, 2000
Filed: January 19, 2000
___________
Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Larry D. Casey challenges the sufficiency of his indictment after he was
convicted on one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. After
reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the indictment sufficiently
alleged the essential elements of wire fraud under § 1343 because the indictment's
statement that Casey's fraudulent credit card transactions were "electronically
forward[ed]" described the interstate use of the wires in a form that substantially stated
this element. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343; United States v. O'Hagan,
139 F.3d 641, 651-52
(8th Cir. 1998) (indictment that alleged fraudulent use of confidential business
information held to have alleged "property" element of mail fraud statute "in a form that
substantially state[d] the element"); United States v. Just,
74 F.3d 902, 904 (8th Cir.
1996) (indictment challenged after jeopardy has attached is liberally construed in favor
of sufficiency); United States v.Mallen,
843 F.2d 1096, 1102 (8th Cir.) (court cannot
require indictment to contain particular word or phrase when it alleges element "in a
form which substantially states element") (quoted source omitted), cert. denied,
488
U.S. 849 (1988).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-