SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
United States v. McCaskill
Citation:
202 Fed.Appx. 70.Facts
In 1997, Eric Hoberg sought to obtain $3.5 million in financing to build a grain mill in North Dakota. Hoberg initially asked for assistance from Richard Sclar. Sclar, however, left the country before fulfilling his promise and Sclar’s ex-wife, Sheila Greenspan, offered to assist Hoberg. Greenspan helped Hoberg obtain a $35,000 insurance binder in order to get funding from a bank or finance company. Greenspan then contacted Jay Elbel, who described himself as an attorney for Nigella Insurance Company. The president of Nigella was Dan Cimini. Ebel informed Greenspan that Nigella could provide the insurance guarantee for Hoberg’s mill, but Nigella was not a double- or triple-A rated insurer and required a major insurance company to reinsure the policy. In reality, Nigella was a sham company created by the appellant. Appellant contacted Ardeana Vance of A-Vance Insurance Agency to obtain the reinsurance. Vance then instructed Greenspan to send Hoberg’s $35,000 binder to a company Vance controlled. The $35,000 was then split between appellant ($10,000), Vance ($10,000), Cimini ($10,000) and Ebel ($5,000). Hoberg never received the promised financing. Appellant, Ebel, Vance, and Cimini 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. The appellant represented himself at trial. As noted in the PSR, the Government presented evidence at sentencing that appellant had actually swindled millions out of approximately 50 victims like Hoberg.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.
Topic Resources
Topic Outline
Theories of Punishment