No. 21-5128

Paul R. Hansmeier v. United States

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-07-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: circuit-split common-law-fraud criminal-law mail-fraud materiality statutory-interpretation transaction-essence wire-fraud
Key Terms:
Copyright
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Under the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes, does an actionable scheme to defraud require, as an aspect of materiality, a falsehood which goes to the essence or nature of the transaction at issue?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Both the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and wire fraud statute, § 1348, proscribe any scheme to defraud in connection with specified modes of communication. The statutes incorporate elements of common law fraud, including materiality of falsehood. The commonlaw concept of materiality involves a falsehood that goes to the essence of the bargain at issue. The question presented by the petition is: Under the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes, does an actionable scheme to defraud require, as an aspect of materiality, a falsehood which goes to the essence or nature of the transaction at issue? i

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-07-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-07-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 16, 2021)

Attorneys

Paul R. Hansmeier
Andrew Herbert MohringGoetz & Eckland, Petitioner
United States
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent