Source: http://openjurist.org/98/f3d/711
Timestamp: 2013-12-06 10:09:18
Document Index: 173325556

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1028', '§ 1542', '§ 1344', '§ 1028', '§ 1542', '§ 1546', '§ 1512', '§ 1344', '§ 1344']

98 F3d 711 United States v. Chandler | OpenJurist
98 F. 3d 711 - United States v. Chandler	Home98 f3d 711 united states v. chandler
98 F3d 711 United States v. Chandler 98 F.3d 711
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Carrie CHANDLER, also known as Amy Glasper, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 620, Docket 94-1522.
Argued Jan. 22, 1996.Decided Oct. 23, 1996.
Carrie Chandler, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Arthur D. Spatt, Judge ) entered on September 28, 1994. Following a jury trial, Chandler was convicted of one count of possessing and using five or more false identification documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3), one count of making a false statement in the application and use of a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, and one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. On appeal, the defendant challenges the jury instructions for all three counts.
By superseding indictment entered on March 17, 1993, Chandler was indicted on five counts. Count One charged that between September 1987 and June 1992 Chandler possessed and used five or more false identification documents--namely, a U.S. passport, a State of Michigan driver's license, a certified copy of a birth certificate, a State of Michigan voter registration card, and a Social Security Card--in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3). Count Two alleged that in July 1989, by stating her name as Amy L. Glasper, Chandler made a false statement in the application and use of a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. Count Three charged that between December 1987 and June 1992 Chandler used a passport procured by a false statement (the passport was issued in the name of Gail T. Wilson), violating 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), which proscribes fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents. Count Four charged Chandler with attempting in May 1992 to prevent a witness from testifying in the grand jury investigation into Counts One through Three, constituting obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1).
Chandler claims that the court erred in charging the jury that it could convict her of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 if it found that she intended to deceive the bank. She claims that § 1344 requires not just intent to deceive but intent to harm or cheat. Chandler points out that while intent to decei