Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/576/1383/254640/
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 15:44:39
Document Index: 507483956

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1341', '§ 1341', '§ 1343', '§ 1341']

576 F.2d 1383: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Edward Louderman, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jacquelyn Mary Louderman, Aka Jackie Williams, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.2d > Volume 576 > 576 F.2d 1383 - United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
576 F.2d 1383: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Edward Louderman, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jacquelyn Mary Louderman, Aka Jackie Williams, Defendant-appellantUnited States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 576 F.2d 1383
1 18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides:
2 Jacquelyn Louderman points out, but does not pursue further, that although the statute is phrased in the disjunctive, the indictment is phrased in the conjunctive. It appears that this point was not raised below and, therefore, cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. United States v. Celestine, 510 F.2d 457, 460-61 (9th Cir. 1975). Further, the contention urged is meritless. See, e. g., United States v. O'Looney, 544 F.2d 385 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1023, 97 S.Ct. 642, 50 L.Ed.2d 625 (1976)
3 Unfortunately, the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 is sparse. Section 1343 is, however, included within the mail fraud chapter and does appear to be patterned after 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and although § 1341 and § 1343 differ as to the elements necessary to trigger federal jurisdiction, they share identical language in providing that those who act "having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . . . ." As the Supreme Court stated in Northcross v. Memphis Board of Education, 412 U.S. 427, 428, 93 S.Ct. 2201, 2202, 37 L.Ed.2d 48 (1973), in comparing provisions for attorney's fees in two different federal statutes, "(t)he similarity of language . . . is, of course, a strong indication that the two statutes should be interpreted pari passu. Moreover, 'the two provisions share a common raison d'etre.' " The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has also reached the conclusion that §§ 1341 and 1343 are in pari materia. United States v. Donahue, 539 F.2d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir. 1976). See also United States v. Calvert, 523 F.2d 895, 903 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 1106, 47 L.Ed.2d 314 (1976)
4 Charles Louderman's due process claims which he asserts without discussion are frivolous