Opinion ID: 739316
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intent: Foreseeability of the Use of the Mails

Text: 55 Conspiracy to commit mail fraud requires at least the level of intent necessary for mail fraud itself. United States v. Sneed, 63 F.3d 381, 385 (5th Cir.1995) (internal citations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 712, 133 L.Ed.2d 667 (1996). However, there is no specific intent requirement with respect to the mailing element of mail fraud. United States v. Massey, 827 F.2d 995, 1002 (5th Cir.1987). The test is one of reasonable foreseeability: the prosecution need only prove that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud in which they contemplated that the mails would likely be used. Id. 56 The mailing at issue is the September 19, 1989, letter from the GLO to Redfish Bay Operating Co., stating that the lease to tract 350 had been maintained. As the government points out, the object of the conspiracy was to obtain a clean bill of health for tract 350. The GLO was in Austin; Myers and Jaffe were based in San Antonio, 75 miles away. The letter's author, Pittman, testified that the GLO routinely transacted business by mail. 57 Appellants contend that this evidence is not enough. They argue that since none of them was employed by the land office, they could not have known that the GLO routinely transacted business through the mail. They also claim that the distance between Austin and San Antonio does not support the conclusion that the use of the mails was foreseeable, especially in light of their own habits of delivering documents by hand and traveling to Austin to do business with the GLO. 58 Even if appellants' argument were not implausible on its face, the only precedent they cite in its behalf is the first panel opinion in Brumley. See United States v. Brumley (Brumley I), 59 F.3d 517, 520-22 (5th Cir.1995), opinion withdrawn and superseded on reh'g, 79 F.3d 1430, 1432 (5th Cir.1996), opinion vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 91 F.3d 676 (5th Cir.1996). Appellants insist that the first Brumley opinion is still good law. They are mistaken. 7 See 5TH CIR. R . 41.3; United States v. Pineda-Ortuno, 952 F.2d 98, 102 (5th Cir.1992) (once rehearing en banc is granted, panel decision is vacated and of no precedential value). 59 We conclude that the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that use of the mail was reasonably foreseeable to appellants. 60