United States v. Ackerman, 16226.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 16226.,16226. |
| Parties | The UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert ACKERMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Michael Guinan, David J. Griffin, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., John M. Connery, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for appellee, John Peter Lulinski, Gerald M. Werksman, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel.
Before DUFFY, Senior Circuit Judge, and CASTLE and FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judges.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of violating Title 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The offense charged was that defendant, with unlawful and fraudulent intent, caused to be transported in interstate commerce (from Chicago, Illinois to Columbus, Ohio), a certain falsely made and forged security, to-wit: a check of $214.20 drawn on the Ohio National Bank, Columbus, Ohio, payable to United Airlines and signed as its drawer, Thomas N. Pearson.
The record shows defendant admitted to FBI Agent Giannetti that he used certain techniques to cash checks. One such technique was to buy airline tickets with a bad check, and subsequently return the tickets to the airline and obtain from the airline its check in return for the tickets.
It is undisputed that defendant Ackerman executed the check in question by signing the name "Thomas N. Pearson";1 that Pearson's name was typed under his signature together with Pearson's former address, 1117 Galena, Aurora.
Defendant's first claim is that the security was not a falsely made and forged security within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Defendant argues the security (Government Exhibit 9-A) was a genuine instrument inasmuch as the account upon which it was drawn was actually in existence under the name of Thomas N. Pearson.
In our view, defendant falsely made and forged Government Exhibit 9-A when he signed it "Thomas N. Pearson" and when he typed Pearson's name under the signature together with Pearson's former address, 1117 Galena, Aurora, Illinois.
The writing of the Pearson name on the check by defendant was false. It purported to be what it was not. The signature on the check together with the typed-in name and address made it an efficient means of fraud.
Defendant argues that no intent to defraud was shown. We disagree. Defendant opened the account at the Ohio bank in the name of Pearson. He used Pearson's lost Illinois driver's license as a means of identification. Defendant purported to be someone he was not. He then made a deposit of $50, but proceeded promptly to issue against that account, eleven checks ranging from $109.84 to $142.44. All such conduct was steeped in fraud.
In Hubsch v. United States, 256 F.2d 820, 824 (5 Cir., 1958) the Court stated: " * * * Where a person not only takes an assumed name but uses that name to designate a fictional person with characteristics, personality and a semblance of identity, the use of the fictitious name as an instrument of fraud in the impersonation of the fictional person is as much a forgery as though the fictional character was real." We agree!
We hold the security (Government Exhibit 9-A) was a falsely made and forged security within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2314. In accord are such cases as Edge v. United States, 270 F.2d 837 (5 Cir., 1959); Cunningham v. United States, 272 F.2d 791 (4 Cir., 1959), and Hall v. United States, 372 F.2d 603 (8 Cir., 1967), cert. den. (1967), 387 U.S. 923, 87...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. McElroy
...18 U.S.C. § 2(b) (1976). To the same effect, see United States v. Sciortino, 601 F.2d 680, 683 (2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Ackerman, 393 F.2d 121, 122 (7th Cir. 1968). As the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit pointed out in Newson, "The essence of the offense is the fraudulent sch......
-
United States v. Blair
...transported in interstate commerce. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 7-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954), United States v. Ackerman, 393 F.2d 121, 122 (7th Cir.1968). 2 The money orders were apparently made out to Shur Kleen Company or Shur Klein Co. The misspelling is not material ......
-
U.S. v. Bruscino, s. 80-2336
...used interchangeably with the "reasonable possibility" standard. See, e.g., Llewellyn, supra, 609 F.2d at 196; United States v. Ackerman, 393 F.2d 121, 123 (7th Cir. 1968). In any event the appellants do not contend that the judge used an improper The proper standard of appellate review of ......
-
United States v. Shafer, 18793.
...Nor in this case did reversible error arise from the submission of the exhibit and container to the jury. In United States v. Ackerman, 393 F.2d 121, 123 (7th Cir.1968), this Court affirmed a conviction for interstate transportation of a forged security where the instrument itself inadverte......