Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06036/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06036-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry C. Cabelka
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

. ItI LED 

Uhlted States C0utt of Appeal~ 

Temb Cirr.u.ir · 

FEB Z 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v . No. 89-6036 

LARRY C. CABELKA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C . No. CR-88-136-W) 

(W. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND * JUDGMENT 

Before TACHA ** and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and O'CONNOR, District 

Judge. 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying 

defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial under 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33. Defendant appeals 

on the grounds that the government failed to prove either that 

defendant used the United States mails or that such use was 

reasonably foreseeable by defendant. Defendant further alleges 

* . . . This order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** . . The Honorable Earl E. O'Connor, Chief Judge, United states 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-6036 Document: 01019964955 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 1 
that the district court erred in failing to apply the doctrine of 

collateral estoppel to the government's claim of fraud. 

The record contains ample evidence to support the jury's 

-

finding that defendant caused the purchase order that is the 

subject of this appeal to be deposited in the United States mail 

and that such mailing was reasonably foreseeable by defendant. 

Specifically, Gary Glasscock testified that he deposited the 

subject purchase order in the United States mail and that he did 

so with defendant's knowledge. 

Defendant points to circumstantial evidence that Glasscock 

sent the purchase order via Federal Express. Specifically, 

defendant argues that Glasscock must have sent the purchase order 

via Federal Express because it arrived in Kansas City, Missouri, 

from Lawton, Oklahoma, on March 15, 1985, and Glasscock could not 

have mailed it until March 14, 1985. Glasscock testified, however, 

that he was in a position to mail the purchase order on the 

afternoon of March 13, 1985. Accordingly, defendant's challenge 

to the sufficiency of the evidence against him is without 

substance, and the jury's verdict will not be disturbed. 

With respect to the issue of collateral estoppel, the district 

court correctly ruled that the earlier stipulation in bankruptcy 

court did not collaterally estop the United States from claiming 

fraud in this action. As the court below noted, the validity of 

the underlying fraud was not actually litigated in the bankruptcy 

proceeding. Moreover, the government was not a party to the 

bankruptcy case and therefore cannot be collaterally estopped from 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 89-6036 Document: 01019964955 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 2 
' 

asserting fraud in this action . 

determinatiqns of the district court. 

AFFIRMED. 

- 3 -

We find no error in the 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Earl E. O'Connor 

Chief Judge 

District of Kansas 

Appellate Case: 89-6036 Document: 01019964955 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 3