Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 F.3d 485

Docket No. 93-3307.

United States v. Smith

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 22, 1994.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-02-22

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1994

1 federal appellate ·

1 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)

Relies on United States v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Ruggero John Aldisert · Decided 1994-02-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1D. Kansas, D.C. No. 92-20011-01; John W. Lungstrum, District Judge.

¶2*486Before BALDOCK, ALDISERT *, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

¶4ORDER AND JUDGMENT

¶5ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.

¶6Brenda Lu Smith appeals the district court’s special verdict ordering forfeiture following her conviction for two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and three counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The Appellant raised this issue on appeal in order to preserve her position that, should we reverse the underlying criminal conviction, we must necessarily reverse the forfeiture order. Accordingly, because we affirmed her conviction in United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 1421 (10th Cir.1994), we will also affirm the order of forfeiture.

/19/f3d/485 · .json · Public domain