Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

United States v. McCaskill

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
202 Fed.Appx. 70 (2006)


Facts

In an effort to help Eric Hoberg obtain financing to build a grain mill in North Dakota, Sheila Greenspan recommended that Hoberg obtain an insurance binder that he could use to obtain funding from a bank or finance company. Greenspan contacted Jay Elbel (defendant), who described himself as an attorney for Nigella Insurance Company. Nigella’s president was Dan Cimini (defendant). Ebel informed Greenspan that Nigella could provide the insurance guarantee for Hoberg’s project. However, Nigella was not a double- or triple-A rated insurer and thus required a major insurance company to reinsure, or provide an insurance wrap, for Nigella’s policy. Nigella was a sham company created by insurance businessman, Luther McCaskill (defendant). McCaskill contacted Ardeana Vance (defendant) of A-Vance Insurance Agency to obtain the reinsurance. Vance instructed Greenspan to send Hoberg’s $35,000 binder to a company Vance controlled. The $35,000 was split between McCaskill ($10,000), Vance ($10,000), Cimini ($10,000) and Ebel ($5,000) and no financing was ever obtained for Hoberg. McCaskill, Ebel, Vance, and Cimini (collectively Defendants) were indicted in a 32-count indictment. The charges against Vance were dismissed prior to trial. Cimini pled guilty. And Ebel was placed in a pretrial diversion program. Only McCaskill went to trial and represented himself. The three counts presented at trial were conspiracy, wire fraud, and possession of forged securities. McCaskill was convicted and sentenced to 60-month consecutive terms of imprisonment on the conspiracy and wire fraud counts. Additionally, McCaskill was sentenced to a 68-month sentence on the forged securities count for a total of 188 months. McCaskill appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Stafford, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.