United States v. George Dadanian and Jean Dadanian

856 F.2d 1391, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12738, 1988 WL 92464
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 9, 1988
Docket85-5095, 85-5248
StatusPublished
Cited by61 cases

This text of 856 F.2d 1391 (United States v. George Dadanian and Jean Dadanian) 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. George Dadanian and Jean Dadanian, 856 F.2d 1391, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12738, 1988 WL 92464 (9th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

The petition for rehearing is granted.

We have reexamined our opinion, 818 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir.1987), in light of the subsequent case of McNally v. United States, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987). We conclude that McNally was violated and that the failure to instruct the jury on the “property” element was not harmless error. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3107-09, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 107 S.Ct. 1918, 1921-22, 95 L.Ed.2d 439 (1987). We also conclude that the Dadanians’ scheme to obtain the gambling license did not affect the City of Bell’s interests as a property-holder. See McNally, 107 S.Ct. at 2881 n. 8. Cf. Carpenter v. United States, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 316, 98 L.Ed.2d 275 (1987). Moreover, the other convictions fail to supply the “property” element required under the mail fraud statute. See McNally, 107 S.Ct. at 2880-81. The Dadanians’ convictions for mail fraud are reversed.

However, the judgment against defendants still stands as to counts ten, eleven, and twelve. The sentences on counts ten, eleven and twelve will remain intact. The court will vacate the sentences on the mail fraud counts.

The court disregards the request for rehearing en banc without prejudice to any party filing another petition for rehearing on the case as now modified.

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

Related

State v. Flores
344 Conn. 713 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2022)
United States v. Delton Rushin
844 F.3d 933 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
United States v. DiCristina
726 F.3d 92 (Second Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Larson
Ninth Circuit, 2007
United States v. Arnell
187 F. App'x 724 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Stewart
151 F. Supp. 2d 572 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2001)
United States v. Frega
179 F.3d 793 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Shotts
145 F.3d 1289 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Sandoval-Lopez
122 F.3d 797 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Salvatore
110 F.3d 1131 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Ferber
966 F. Supp. 90 (D. Massachusetts, 1997)
United States v. Michael Mangiardi
107 F.3d 18 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Cleveland
951 F. Supp. 1249 (E.D. Louisiana, 1997)
United States v. Frega
933 F. Supp. 1536 (S.D. California, 1996)
United States v. Ambers
Fourth Circuit, 1996
United States v. Anthony Rebich
85 F.3d 639 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
856 F.2d 1391, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12738, 1988 WL 92464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-george-dadanian-and-jean-dadanian-ca9-1988.