Shaw v. United States
| Docket No. | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15-5991 | Oct 4, 2016 | Dec 12, 2016 | 8-0 | Breyer | OT 2016 |
Holding: (1) The defendant's arguments that subsection (1) of the bank fraud statute, which covers schemes to deprive a bank of money in a customer's deposit account, does not apply to him because he intended to cheat only a bank depositor, not a bank, are unpersuasive; and (2) with regard to the parties' dispute over whether the district court improperly instructed the jury that a scheme to defraud a bank must be one to deceive the bank or deprive it of something of value, instead of one to deceive and deprive, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is left to determine whether that question was properly presented and if so, whether the instruction given is lawful, and, if not, whether any error was harmless.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on December 12, 2016.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Government prevails in bank fraud case (Amy Howe, December 12, 2016)
- Argument analysis: Something for both sides in bank fraud argument (Amy Howe, October 4, 2016)
- Argument preview: Court to consider scope of federal bank-fraud statute (Amy Howe, September 27, 2016)
- Another look at proof of bank fraud (Lyle Denniston, April 25, 2016)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 09/04/2015 | Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 9, 2015) |
| 09/30/2015 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 9, 2015. |
| 11/06/2015 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 9, 2015. |
| 12/04/2015 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 27, 2016. |
| 01/28/2016 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 10, 2016. |
| 03/08/2016 | Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. |
| 03/22/2016 | Reply of petitioner Lawrence Eugene Shaw filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/24/2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 15, 2016. |
| 04/18/2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 22, 2016. |
| 04/25/2016 | Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. |
| 05/13/2016 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 27, 2016. |
| 05/13/2016 | The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 15, 2016. |
| 06/27/2016 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) |
| 06/27/2016 | Brief of petitioner Lawrence Eugene Shaw filed. |
| 07/05/2016 | Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. |
| 07/13/2016 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 4, 2016. |
| 07/22/2016 | Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. |
| 07/23/2016 | The record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of a SEALED document that is electronic. |
| 07/23/2016 | Record received from U.S.D.C. Central Dist. of California (Western Div. - Los Angeles) is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of a SEALED document that is electronic. |
| 08/15/2016 | Brief of respondent United States filed. |
| 08/19/2016 | CIRCULATED. |
| 09/14/2016 | Reply of petitioner Lawrence Eugene Shaw filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/04/2016 | Argued. For petitioner: Koren L. Bell, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, Cal. For respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. |
| 12/12/2016 | Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
| 01/13/2017 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |