The US Supreme Court [official website] granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in Shaw v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to determine the level of intent that must be proven for a bank fraud conviction. The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 in Loughrin v. United States [JURIST report] that prosecution under subsection (2) of the federal government’s anti-bank fraud statute [text] does not require proof that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution, leaving open the question of intent under subsection (1). The question before the court in Shaw is, “Whether subsection (1)’s “scheme to defraud a financial institution” requires proof of a specific intent not only to deceive, but also to cheat, a bank, as nine circuits have held, and as petitioner Lawrence Shaw argued here.”
Also Monday the court agreed to hear Manrique v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to determine whether a notice of appeal from a sentencing judgment deferring restitution is effective to challenge the validity of a later-issued restitution award. Marvelo Manrique was convicted of possessing child pornography. He was sentenced to six years in prison and a life term of supervision, but a federal judge ruled that an award of restitution had to be made to the child, with the amount to be determined at a later hearing. Manrique filed a formal notice that he was appealing the sentence. The judge later ordered restitution of $4,500, but Manrique did not file a new notice that he was appealing, relying on the earlier notice. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that it could not rule on the restitution appeal [opinion, PDF].