United States v. Loughrin
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4777
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Loughrin was convicted of bank fraud and related charges in a scheme involving stealing and altering checks to buy items at Target for cash.
- Indictment charged six counts of bank fraud, two counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of possession of stolen mail.
- At trial, Loughrin challenged the bank-fraud jury instruction, arguing §1344(2) requires proof of intent to defraud a bank.
- Loughrin also challenged delays between indictment and trial under the Speedy Trial Act.
- The district court rejected the proposed banking-intent instruction and ran various ends-of-justice continuances; Loughrin was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 36 months.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding no error in the jury instruction and that the Speedy Trial Act timelines were properly managed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1344(2) require intent to defraud a bank? | Loughrin argues Rackley requires defrauding a bank, not merely obtaining bank funds. | Loughrin contends the jury instruction should require intent to defraud a bank. | No; §1344(2) does not require intent to defraud a bank; intent to defraud Target suffices. |
| Was there a Speedy Trial Act violation based on continuances and timing? | Loughrin contends the delays violated the 70-day STA tally. | The government argues several delays were excludable under STA provisions and ends-of-justice findings were proper. | No; the excluded days and ends-of-justice findings keep nonexcludable days under 70. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rackley, 986 F.2d 1357 (10th Cir. 1993) (elements of §1344(2) focus on defendant's intent to defraud, not the bank's risk)
- United States v. Sapp, 53 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 1995) (§1344(2) requires intent to defraud, bank not necessarily at risk)
- United States v. Williams, 511 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2007) (change-of-plea qualifies as pretrial motion for exclusion of time)
- United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (ends-of-justice continuances require explicit findings)
- United States v. Gonzales, 137 F.3d 1431 (10th Cir. 1998) (district court must justify ends-of-justice continuances with factual grounding)