Monday, February 22, 2016

US v. Eglash, No. 14-30132 (2-17-16)(Christen; concurrence by Kleinfeld; partial dissent by Wallace). This concerns the final step necessary to complete a fraud under Schmuck and US v. Brown, 771 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir 2014).  The 9th held that getting a "notice" from the SSA about an award was a necessary final step.  However, a "summary" of statements was not.  The 9th reversed the former conviction and affirmed the latter.  Kleinfeld thinks Brown was wrongly decided and should go en banc.  Wallace sees no problem.
The decision is here:



Post a Comment

<< Home