United States of Am., & v. Solomon Goldberg, Also Known as Saul Gould, &, 455 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
United States of Am., & v. Solomon Goldberg, Also Known as Saul Gould, &, 455 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Federal Trade Commission v. Lake (cacb, 2021-04-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Trade Commission v. Lake
Bankr. C.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & 20 Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639, 648 (2008) (“Using the mail to execute or attempt to 21 execute a scheme to defraud is indictable as mail fraud . . . even if no one relied on any 22 misrepresentation”); United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 480-81 (9th Cir. 1972) 23 (“The essential elements of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 are (1) a scheme to 24 defraud, and (2) a knowing use of the mail to execute the scheme. [citation omitted] . . . 25 It is not necessary to show that reliance of the victim was induced by misrepresentation 26 of the defendant . . . “)…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sanders
9th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
While it is a fundamental constitutional principle under the Sixth Amendment that a defendant must be apprised of the charges that he faces, and the jury also must be properly apprised of those charges, see United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 480 (9th Cir.1972), the mistake that was made here was purely clerical.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re American Continental Corporation/Lincoln Savings & Loan Securities Litigation
D. Ariz. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 967 , 92 S.Ct. 2411 , 32 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shaw v. Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · confidence medium
See United States v. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d 1174 (2d Cir.1970); United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 967 , 92 S.Ct. 2411 , 32 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armco Industrial Credit Corporation v. Slt Warehouse Company, and Richard B. Conklin (2×)
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 967 , 92 S.Ct. 2411 , 32 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Lewis F. Shelton, James Darrough, John Derry, Donald Burks, and Carl Bledsoe
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 967 , 92 S.Ct. 2411 , 32 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. J. Richard Barber
4th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. George, 477 F.2d 508, 512 (7th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 827 , 94 S.Ct. 49 , 38 L.Ed.2d 61 (1973) (“Since the gravamen of the offense is a ‘scheme to defraud,’ it is unnecessary that the Government allege or prove that the victim of the scheme was actually defrauded or suffered a loss.”); United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 967 , 92 *785 S.Ct. 2411, 32 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972) (“It is not necessary to show that reliance of the victim was induced by misrepresentation of the defendant, nor is it necessary to …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gary Halbert
9th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 967 , 92 S.Ct. 2411 , 32 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972); Irwin v. United States, 338 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 911 , 85 S.Ct. 1530 , 14 L.Ed.2d 433 (1965); United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1263 (D.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert L. Beecroft, Arthur T. Harrison, James F. Hennig, and Delbert L. Rogers
9th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 480 (9th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. James A. Harvey, A/K/A Ray Stewart, A/K/A Joseph R. Stewart
8th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
See United States v. Polizzi, 500 F.2d 856, 876 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1120 , 95 S.Ct. 802 , 42 L.Ed.2d 820 (1975); United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 480 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 967 , 92 S.Ct. 2411 , 32 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. George Paul Salemo
9th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) (a conviction of mail fraud does not require the Government "to show that reliance of the victim was induced by misrepresentation of the defendant, nor is it necessary to show that the victim was misled"), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 967 (1972). 33 Salemo argues that the wire fraud count for the purchase of the Mercedes was erroneous because Salemo sent a facsimile after he had purchased the car, not before.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Robert Solomon, Charles Sokolow
11th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Goldberg, 9 Cir. 1972, 455 F.2d 479, 480 , cert. denied, 406 U.S. 967 , 92 S.Ct. 2411 , 32 L.Ed.2d 665 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Brandon Dean
9th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Goldberg, 455 F.2d 479, 480 (9th Cir. 1972); Robles v. United States, 279 F.2d 401, 403-404 (9th Cir.1960); United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir. 1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Solomon GOLDBERG, Also Known as Saul Gould, Defendant and Appellant
71-1513.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 24, 1972.
455 F.2d 479
Morris Lavine (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant., Gregory C. Glynn, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Chief, Criminal Division, Michael J. Lightfoot, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Browning, Trask, Battin.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant was charged with three counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. He was found guilty and convicted on all three counts. The indictment charged that appellant purchased airline tickets from United Airlines on a credit card with no intention of paying the charges incurred. He then sold the tickets at a reduced rate to defendant Kelem, who in turn sold them at reduced rates to the public.

Three basic issues are presented on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court erred in deleting portions of the indictment when read to the jury, both at the beginning of the trial and during the giving of instructions ;

2. Whether the indictment properly charged mail fraud in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 1341;

3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support guilty verdicts.

When the court read the indictment to the jury, it omitted references to Kelem as an aider and abettor in Coiints Seven, Eight and Nine and omitted parts of Count One in the indictment which referred also to Kelem. Appellant did not object to these omissions, but rather expressed agreement with the court’s action. Assuming the issue to be properly before the court, it is without merit, since it is only necessary that the jury be fairly apprised of the nature of the charge, and that does not necessarily require a reading of the indictment to the jury either in whole or in part. Robles v. United States, 279 F.2d 401, 403-404 (9th Cir. 1960). This requirement was met.

The essential elements of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) a knowing use of the mail to execute the scheme. United States v. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d 1174, 1180 (2nd Cir. 1970). Those elements were charged in[*481] the indictment. It is not necessary to show that reliance of the victim was induced by misrepresentation of the defendant, nor is it necessary to show that the victim was misled. Regent, supra, at 1180-1181; Erwin v. United States, 242 F.2d 336, 337 (6th Cir. 1957).

The evidence introduced was sufficient to support a conviction under the indictment. See United States v. Kelem, 416 F.2d 346 (9th Cir. 1969).

Affirmed.