United States v. Hubert Garland Evans

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before us
• noting that “letters designed to conceal a fraud, by lulling a victim into inaction, constitute a continuation of the orig- inal scheme to defraud”
• affirming a wire fraud conviction based on a misleading fax where defendant’s “motivation [was] to escape the legal consequences of [his] past frauds”
• noting identical language in the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes allows courts to “borrow freely” from cases construing each statute
• finding lulling doctrine applicable where letter sent after fruits of fraud received by defendant constituted continuation of original scheme to defraud
• reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).