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

Heading: Mailing in Furtherance

Text: 64 Myers and Shanklin claim that the evidence was insufficient to prove that either of them caused a mailing in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. A defendant causes the mails to be used if he does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended.... Sneed, 63 F.3d at 385 n. 4 (quoting Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 363, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954)). 65 We find that the jury could rationally have concluded that Myers was the driving force behind the effort to retain the lease on tract 350; that he submitted a false affidavit to the GLO in a plot to obtain written confirmation that the lease was still good; and that Shanklin prepared false field reports to support Myers' affidavits. It is reasonable to infer that the GLO would not have mailed the confirmation letter of September 19, 1989, but for appellants' submission of these false documents. The GLO mailing was reasonably foreseeable; indeed, it was a desired result of appellants' efforts.