United States v. Alvin Willis, Jr.

528 F.2d 381, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13421
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 12, 1976
Docket75--3009
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 528 F.2d 381 (United States v. Alvin Willis, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Alvin Willis, Jr., 528 F.2d 381, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13421 (9th Cir. 1976).

Opinion

OPINION

Before CHOY and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and WONG, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

On stipulated facts, Defendant was found guilty of interstate transportation of a forged security. We affirm.

He contends here that United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 94 S.Ct. 645, 38 L.Ed.2d 603 (1974) bars his conviction because the fruition of the alleged scheme occurred after the mails were utilized. (In Maze, a case under the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the mailing occurred after the fraud was consummated so the Court held that the use of the mails had not been “for the purpose of executing such [fraudulent] scheme or artifice” as the statute required.)

Here the essential stipulated facts were that Willis knowingly and fraudu *382 lently deposited a forged $12,500 check drawn on a Texas bank in his California bank account knowing that the signature of the drawer was forged; and that Willis drew the money after the forged check cleared the Texas bank.

The rule of Maze is inapposite here. Its application is restricted to mail fraud cases — the mail fraud statute’s peculiar language, i. e. that use of the mails be for the purpose of executing a fraudulent scheme, is not present in 18 U.S.C. § 2314, the statute under which Willis was convicted.

All § 2314 requires is that Defendant either transport or cause to be transported in interstate commerce the forged security knowing it was forged.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Robert Dahle Sparrow
614 F.2d 229 (Tenth Circuit, 1980)
United States v. Kenneth Wayne Walls
577 F.2d 690 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)
United States v. Van Grover Simpson
577 F.2d 78 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)
Springfield Street Railway Co. v. United States
577 F.2d 700 (Court of Claims, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
528 F.2d 381, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alvin-willis-jr-ca9-1976.