Francisco Mena v. Loretta Lynch

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the “consent” essential to extortion stands in marked contrast to the type of “consent” underlying an embezzlement offense, which is “closely related” to the crime of fraud
• explaining we are “obliged” to conduct that analysis and “may not simply rest our decision on some concept of common 13 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4048 Doc: 53 Filed: 05/22/2026 Pg: 14 of 26 sense”
• explaining we are “obliged” to conduct that analysis and “may not simply rest our decision on some concept of common 13 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4048 Doc: 56 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 14 of 26 sense”
• explaining that lack of consent is essential

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).