United States v. Hoke, 011414 FED2, 13-615
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. KENITA E. HOKE, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||FOR APPELLANT: TIMOTHY AUSTIN (Molly Corbett, on the brief), for Lisa A. Peebles, Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of New York, Albany, New York. FOR APPELLEES: RAJIT S. DOSANJH (Edward P. Grogan, on the brief), for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern Di...|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||January 14, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTS LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION SUMMARY ORDER). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of January, two thousand fourteen.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Kenita Hoke appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.), convicting her of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), and passing and uttering a forged Treasury check, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510. The charges arose from Hoke's deposit into her own account of a Social Security check made out to a third party. After Hoke withdrew the funds, the Treasury sought to recover the funds because the beneficiary's endorsement (and direction to pay to the order of Hoke) was forged. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
1. Intent to Defraud
Hoke challenges the sufficiency of the evidence demonstrating her intent to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP