United States v. Runner, 143 F.4th 146

From the 1990s to the 2010s, Patrice Runner operated a mass-mailing business selling purported supernatural objects and psychic services using false advertising, targeting over a million customers in the U.S. and Canada.
Customers paid for personalized psychic services and supposedly rare objects, but received generic trinkets or nothing personalized; Maria Duval's name and likeness were used without her direct involvement.
In 2018, Runner was indicted on conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, substantive mail and wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Runner was convicted on 14 counts; he challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the sentencing calculation.
On appeal, the case was informed by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kousisis v. United States, addressing the scope of federal mail and wire fraud statutes.
The district court sentenced Runner to ten years' imprisonment (far below Guidelines), and Runner appealed the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment was legally defective for failing to allege intent-to-harm under mail/wire fraud statutes.	Indictment lacked sufficient allegations of intent to harm; mere false statements re: psychic services not actionable.	Indictment alleged use of falsehoods to induce monetary payments; intent-to-harm shown by fraudulent inducement.	Indictment sufficient; Kousisis allows fraudulent-inducement theory.
Sufficiency of the evidence: did the government prove fraudulent intent?	Government failed to prove Runner intended economic harm, as customers got the 'hope' or entertainment sought.	Evidence showed deliberate misrepresentations re: source and nature of goods/services, intended to get money.	Evidence sufficient under new standard post-Kousisis.
Adequacy of jury instructions on intent-to-harm requirement	Jury not properly instructed on need for intent to cause harm, especially re: omission of key instructions.	Instructions fairly outlined fraudulent intent; no material error in guidance given to jury.	Jury instructions were adequate.
Sentencing: Was district court’s loss estimate (Guidelines calculation) erroneous or prejudicial?	Calculation did not deduct counts of acquittal or customer satisfaction; overestimated loss.	Any error harmless, as court did not rely on Guidelines in setting actual sentence.	Any error was harmless, sentence affirmed.

Kousisis v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1382 (2025) (Supreme Court embraced the fraudulent-inducement theory for federal mail and wire fraud, rejecting intent to cause net economic harm as required element)
United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2015) (establishes mail and wire fraud elements and intent requirements)
United States v. Shellef, 507 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2007) (distinguished between mere deceit and fraudulent intent pre-Kousisis)
United States v. Starr, 816 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) (addressed intent-to-harm in mail and wire fraud; overruled in part by Kousisis)
United States v. Weaver, 860 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (summarized mail and wire fraud requirements, including materiality)
United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (review of sentencing loss calculations)