UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM BOSS EDMONDSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that each mailing in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme constitutes a separate violation of the mail fraud statute, and that claims not raised in the district court are not appealable.
Edmondson appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing he could not be charged with multiple counts of mail fraud and tha…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Edmondson appeals from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a). He contends that he could not legally be charged with multiple counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 because the separate loan applications that he mailed were sent to only one source. Each mailing in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme constitutes a separate violation of the mail fraud statute. Badders v. U.S., 240 U.S. 391, 394, 36 S.Ct. 367, 368, 60 L.Ed. 706 (1960); U.S. v. Ash-down, 509 F. 2d 793, 800 (5th Cir.1975). He also contends that his sentence was based on a presentence investigation report that was mostly erroneous, and that the court was informed that it was erroneous.
Both defendant and his counsel were asked if they wished to make a statement before sentencing, and they responded. After their responses the judge asked them whether there was anything they found in the presentence report that was incorrect. Defendant responded: “Your Honor, since I throw myself at the mercy of the court, I take no exceptions.” Counsel responded: “No, your Honor.” At no point during the sentencing hearing did defendant or his counsel complain that they had inadequate time to examine the PSI or assert that it contained inaccuracies. A defendant who wishes to challenge factual statements in a PSI must follow the procedures set out in Rule 32. Simmons v. US., 777 F. 2d 660 (11th Cir.1985); U.S. v. Ruiz, 580 F. 2d 177, 178 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1051, 99 S.Ct. 732, 58 L.Ed.2d 712 (1978).1
The defendant also contends that his counsel was ineffective for not contending that the government illegally pressed criminal charges against him when its claims are really civil. This issue was not raised before the district court and therefore is not before this court on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
. We have jurisdiction under the appeal taken from denial of the Rule 35(a) motion, 86-7785, and all issues raised can be decided in that appeal. Therefore, we do not need to decide whether, in 86-7439, defendant could appeal from the denial of a post-sentencing motion to correct inaccuracies in the PSI, purportedly filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948 (11th Cir. 1990)…e assistance. As a result, it is not surprising that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal where the claim has not been heard by the district court nor a factual record developed. United States v. Edmondson, 818 F. 2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam); United States v. Rodriguez, 582 F. 2d 1015, 1016 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam); United States v. Gray, 464 F. 2d 632, 634 n. 1 (8th Cir.1972); United States v. Prince, 456 F. 2d 1070, 1070-71 (5th Cir.1972); but cf.…
-
United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008)…eparate offense.” Id. at 394, 36 S.Ct. at 368. We have applied this interpretation of § 1341, finding that “[e]ach mailing in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme constitutes a separate violation of the mail fraud statute.” United States v. Edmondson, 818 F. 2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam). We have made an analogous interpretation of the bank fraud statute, holding that “[u]nder 18 U.S.C. § 1344, a defendant may be charged in separate counts for each ‘execution’ of the scheme to defraud.” United Sta…
-
Parks v. United States, 832 F.2d 1244 (11th Cir. 1987)…collateral attack of sentence when direct review has occurred, a petitioner must show cause for failure to raise the claim during prior review as well as actual prejudice resulting from the errors claimed.3 See generally United States v. Edmondson, 818 F. 2d 768 (11th Cir.1987) (failure to raise objections at sentencing hearing as to inadequate time to review PSI or as to report’s inaccuracy bars raising such objection in a later motion under Rule 35); Simmons v. United States, 777 F. 2d 660 (11th Cir.1985)…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Badders v. United States, 240 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1916)
- United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Tobin v. United States, 439 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1978)
- Gordon v. United States, 439 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Ruiz, 580 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Simmons v. United States, 777 F.2d 660 (11th Cir. 1985)