United States v. Carter
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
530 F.3d 565 (2008)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Morris Carter (defendant) was the elected county recorder. Peter Livas, an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), owned three real estate rehab and redevelopment companies. Carter was indicted for extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Audio and video recordings, hidden-camera footage, and testimony at trial established that (1) Livas was seeking a list of homes in foreclosure and a contractor’s license to build in the county in which Carter was the recorder; (2) Livas paid Carter for the foreclosure lists; (3) Carter instructed Livas to bring money to Carter’s office, where he would connect him to someone who administered the written test for the contractor’s license; (4) at Carter’s office, Carter told Livas to pay him by giving the money to the subcontractor and sent Livas upstairs to meet with the individual who could help Livas get the contractor’s license; (5) Livas paid the subcontractor for the contractor’s license; (6) Livas took and intentionally failed the contractor’s license test, but a new exam with a passing score was completed for him; and (7) Carter sent the individual who had helped with the test a thank-you note and some cash. Carter was convicted and appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that his actions affected interstate commerce.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.