Anthony Kingsberry v. USA

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-2039
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Eastern
v. * District of Arkansas.
*
Larry D. Casey, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: January 6, 2000
Filed: January 19, 2000
___________
Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Larry D. Casey challenges the sufficiency of his indictment after he was
convicted on one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. After
reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the indictment sufficiently
alleged the essential elements of wire fraud under § 1343 because the indictment's
statement that Casey's fraudulent credit card transactions were "electronically
forward[ed]" described the interstate use of the wires in a form that substantially stated
this element. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343; United States v. O'Hagan, 139 F.3d 641, 651-52
(8th Cir. 1998) (indictment that alleged fraudulent use of confidential business

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
information held to have alleged "property" element of mail fraud statute "in a form that
substantially state[d] the element"); United States v. Just, 74 F.3d 902, 904 (8th Cir.
1996) (indictment challenged after jeopardy has attached is liberally construed in favor
of sufficiency); United States v.Mallen, 843 F.2d 1096, 1102 (8th Cir.) (court cannot
require indictment to contain particular word or phrase when it alleges element "in a
form which substantially states element") (quoted source omitted), cert. denied, 488
U.S. 849 (1988).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-- 2 of 2 --