Opinion ID: 427036
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: conspiracy and the substantive offense

Text: 18 Appellant claims that count I of the Government's indictment alleges that Janyce Carter conspired to participate in the unauthorized loaning of postage stamps in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1711. Appellant reasons that the substantive offense, an unauthorized loaning of postage stamps, requires an agreement between two parties, namely the lender and the borrower, and thus precludes a charge of conspiracy based upon the same agreement. Relying upon Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 643, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 1181, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946), appellant contends that the agreement which is the subject of the substantive offense cannot be used as the basis for a finding of conspiracy where there is no ingredient in the conspiracy not present in the completed crime. 19 We do not reach this issue for two reasons. First, appellant's failure to present this legal issue to the district court results in a waiver of that issue on appeal. As this court has stated on numerous occasions, it is a well-established general proposition that a litigant cannot present to this court as a ground for reversal an issue which was not presented to the trial court and which it, therefore, had no opportunity to decide. Holleman v. Duckworth, 700 F.2d 391, 394-95 (7th Cir.1983). See also Textile Banking Co., Inc. v. Rentschler, 657 F.2d 844, 853 (7th Cir.1981); United States ex rel. Moore v. Brierton, 560 F.2d 288, 291 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1088, 98 S.Ct. 1285, 55 L.Ed.2d 794 (1978). Because the 753 page trial record and accompanying pleadings are void of any argument even resembling appellant's contention that the substantive offense and the conspiracy merge, we do not reach this issue. 20 Second, even if the issue were properly before us a complete reading of count I of the indictment reveals that the conspiracy to knowingly participate in the unauthorized loaning of ... postage stamps not only included participation in the unauthorized loaning of postage stamps, but also included concealing the unauthorized loan and thereby defrauding the United States Postal Service. 4 21 Count I of the indictment, when read in its entirety, thus alleges that Carter agreed to conceal the unauthorized loan by causing Shelby to falsely enter $8,164.02 as the Closing Balance on her May 1, 1981 Daily Financial Report. Appellant makes no argument that a conspiracy to conceal a loan cannot exist. In fact, such a conspiracy satisfies the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court for a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371. Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188, 44 S.Ct. 511, 512, 68 L.Ed. 968 (1924). That being so, we hold that count I of the indictment does allege facts sufficient to fulfill the requirements of a conspiracy and we need not reach appellant's contention that a conspiracy to make an unauthorized loan merges into the substantive offense of making the unauthorized loan. 22