## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 06

- 2883 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J ACK H AR GR OVE , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 03 C R 779

—Jam es B. M oran, Judg e.
A RGUED O CT OB ER 20, 2008

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 26, 2009

Befo re B AUER, K ANNE a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . J ack H ar gr ove w as charge d w i th seve n counts ofm ai l and w ire fr aud in vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C. §§ 1341 and 134 3; a sin gle count ofco nspir acy to c om m i t m ai l fra ud i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 3 71; thre e co u nts o ffi l i ng f al se tax r etur ns i n vi ol ati on o f 26 U
. S. C. § 7206 ; and a si ngl e co unt ofi ncom e t ax ev asi on i n vi ol ati on o f26 U
. S. C. § 7 201. Bef or e t rial, H ar gr ove m o ve d t o di smi ss the mai l fr au d c ha r g es on th e g r o und2 N o. 06

- 2883 th atthe ho ne st
- se r vi ce s pr o vi si o n o fthe mai l fr au d st atut e, 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 13 46 , i s unc o ns ti tu ti o na l l y v ague . The dist ri ct c ou rt d en i ed the m oti on a nd the case pro ceeded t o t r i a l

. Ha r g r o v e wa s c o nv i c t e d o fallc ha r g e s e xc e pt i ncom e t ax ev asi on and o ne co unt offi l i ng f al se tax re turns, o n w hi ch he was acqui tte d. On app eal, H ar gr ove r en ews hi s ch al l en ge t o the c o ns ti tu ti o na l i tyo fthe ma i l fr a u d s t a t u t e ; w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND H ar grov e a nd Laurence Capri ott i were co- own er s o f In te rc ou n ty T itle C om p an y of Illin ois (“In te rc ou n ty ”), a Chi ca g o -ba se d t i tl e i ns ur an ce a nd e sc r o w a g en t. The com p an y sold title insu ran ce p oli cies i ss u e d b y Stew art Tit l e Guara nty Com pany. By the l ate 19 80s, Inter cou n ty was runni ng an annual defi ci t i n the mil l i o ns a s th e r es ul t o fa pr i ce wari n the ti tl e insurance m ar ke t. To co veri ts l oss es, Inter county in ve st ed in jun k b on d s i n t h e h op es th at th e b on d yield w ou l d o ut pe r f o r m t he i r r e a l e s t a t e o b l i g a t i o ns . T he p l an back fi re d, and I nter county goti tse l fi nto a ho l e fro m whi c h i tn e v e r r e c o v e r e d. Ove r a t en - y ea r per i o d be g i nni ng i n 19 90 , Har g r o ve a nd o th ere xe cut i ve s atInt er co unty e ng i ne er ed numer o us fraud ulen t sch em es un d er w hich the title com p an y’s defi ci ts w er e co ver ed by thefts f ro m its es cro w acc ount. I n to tal, the f ra ud ule nt pra cti ces robbed I nter county of m o r e th an$ 60 mil l i o n. Befo re tr i aland aga i n at the cl ose of evi dence, H ar gr ove chal l enged the m ai l fra ud char ge on the bas i s thatN o. 06

- 2883 3 18 U
. S. C. § 1 346 w as unconsti tuti onalo n i ts f ace and as ap p lied

. H ar gr ove ar gued that the s tatute i s v oi d fo r i ts vaguene ss beca use i t f ai l s t o provi de adequate no ti ce o f w hat co nd uct i s pro scr ibed. The di str i ct c ourtr ej ecte d H ar g r o ve ’ s ch al l en g es . The j ur y w as al l o wed t o c o nsid er w h et h er H ar gr ov e h ad co m m itt ed m ail fra u d ; i t de te rm i ned he had and re turned a convi cti on. H ar gr ove a pp e a l e d.

I I . DI S C US S I ON On app eal, H ar gr ove i ni ti al l y r ai sed tw o ar gum ents, but he has s i nce withd ra w n on e. In hi s br i ef, H ar gr ove r ai se d a n ine ffec ti ve a ssist an ce o fc o uns elc l ai m , c o ntendi ng that hi s pri m ar y tr i al att or ney suffer ed from either a p oten t ia l o r actu al confli ct of int erest. H ow ever, at ora l arg u m en t, H ar gr ov e re q u es te d to w ith d ra w th is cl ai m . A s he cor re ctl y no ted, cl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i stance ofco unselar e di sf av ored on di re ct a pp ealbec ause th e fa c tu al fou n d at ion for s u c h cla im s is o f t e n u n d ev elo pe d. Ha r g r o v e r e qu e s t e d the o pp o r t un i t y t o b ui l d a m or e co m ple te re cor d for hi s cl ai m and w e g ra nted hi s r equest to do so

. H ar gr ov e’s r em ain in g c laim is a c h alle n ge to th e c on st itu ti o na l i tyo fthe m ai l fr au d s ta tu te unde r whi chhe w as co n vic te d . H e c on te n d s t h at18 U .S.C . § 13 46 is vo id f or v ag u eness bec ause i t doe s no t defi ne the cr i m i nal offen se w ith su ffici en t d efi niten ess su ch that ordina ry pe o p l e c a n u n d e r s t a n d wh a t c o n d u c t i s p r o h ib i t e d a nd , m oreover, i t enc ou rages arbitrary an d discrim inatory enf or cem ent. A ccor ding to H ar gr ove , he c ou ld n ot have4 N o. 06

- 2883 k no wn th atthe c o nduc t unde r l y i nghi s co nv i ct i o ns co ul d b e co ns i der ed to ha ve de pr i ve d a no th ero fthe “i ntangibl e r i ght o fhones t s er vi ces” under § 1346
. The const i tuti onal i ty ofa sta tute is a n i ssue ofl aw w h i c h w e re vie w d e n ov o. U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l of s on , 5 63 F. 3d 652, 65 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. A s Hargr ove acknow l edges, th is C ou rth as so u n d ly rej ec te d t h e c laim th at th e m ail f ra ud st atute , as appli ed to an intangibl e- ri ghts theo ry, is v oid for v ag u en es s. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Haus m an , 34 5 F
. 3d 95 2, 95 8 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); U nited Sta tes v. Wa rner, 49 8 F
. 3d 666, 69 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. In H ar gr ove’s bri ef, he a rgues that the i ssue m ay b e rip e fo r re consi derat i on in l i ght o f Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Thom ps on , 484 F.3d 877( 7th Cir. 2007). H owever, he f ai ls to posi t a ny r eas on wh y Thom ps on concei vabl y c oul d und er m i ne Haus m an. Thom ps on d id not hin g to distu rb the cen tral holding of Haus m an , w hi ch i s that the m ai l and w i re fra ud st atute s, §§ 1341 , 1343 and 134 6, ar e no t unconst i tuti onal ly vague, as appli ed und erthe i ntangibl e- ri ghts theo ry . A t o ra l ar gum ent, H ar gr ove i nfo rm ed thi s C ou rt that he has ra i sed the cl ai m sol el y forthe pu rpos es ofpre ser ving the i ssu e in th e even t tha t the Sup rem e C ou rt ch o o se s to c o ns i deri t ats o m e futur e dat e. F ai r e no ug h. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM t h e j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourt
.

8- 26- 09