Opinion ID: 269912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: 'Fictitious Name Corporation' Instruction

Text: 20 Finally, Thaw complains of the trial court's failure to clarify the meaning of a 'fictitious name corporation' under Virginia Law, suggesting that the use of this term during the trial implied that Virginia Minitronics itself was not a legally constituted corporation. Actually, the trial court in its instructions stated that whether Virginia Minitronics was considered 'de jure' or 'de facto' made no difference, since the Government charged that it had been used as part of a fraudulent scheme. We think this instruction was, in the context of all the evidence, plainly sufficient. 21 The court expresses its appreciation to appointed counsel for the diligence and ingenuity with which he has briefed and argued this appeal. The judgment is 22 Affirmed.