Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

657 F.2d 28

Docket No. 81-1317.

United States v. Sher

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Aug. 5, 1981.

Decided Aug. 14, 1981.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 6,1981.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1981-08-14

Cited by 9 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1986

7 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way the action ... of any bank the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation . . . upon any application, advance, commitment, or loan, or any change or extension of any of the same . . . shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Sher, Michael

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731

Relies on Exxon Corp. v. Department of Revenue of Wisconsin · United States v. Payne · 507 F. Supp. 359 - United States v. Pavlick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1981-08-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See 661 F.2d 34.

¶2*29Robert J. Cindrich, U. S. Atty., Paul J. Brysh, Edward J. Schwabenland, Asst. U. S. Attys., Thomas M. Fallert, Legal Intern, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

¶3Michael W. Zurat, Mullen & Zurat, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

¶4Before ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges, and RE, Chief Judge.*

¶6OPINION OF THE COURT

¶7PER CURIAM.

¶8Michael Sher was indicted by a grand jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014.1 The indictment charged Sher with conducting a “check-kiting” scheme by depositing worthless checks in two different banks, alternatively covering each check with another worthless check drawn on his account in the other bank and taking advantage of the time lag necessary for clearance to “keep the kite afloat.” Sher moved before trial to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 1014 does not prohibit the conduct alleged. The district court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. United States v. Sher, 505 F.Supp. 858 (W.D.Pa.1981). The United States appeals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731.

¶9We have carefully considered the arguments presented by the appellant,2 and we are in agreement with Judge McCune’s thoughtful opinion for the court below. See also United States v. Pavlick, 507 F.Supp. 359 (M.D.Pa.1980). Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.

/657/f2d/28 · .json · Public domain