Cleveland v. United States Case Brief

Facts of the Case

“Louisiana law authorized the state to award nontransferable, annually renewable licenses to operate video poker machines. License applicants had to meet suitability requirements designed to insure that they had good character and fiscal integrity. The state itself did not run any video poker machinery. In 1992, a limited partnership was formed to participate in the video poker business in Louisiana. Defendant Carl W. Cleveland, a lawyer, assisted in preparing the partnership’s initial and subsequent video poker license applications, each of which identified the children of another party as the sole beneficial owners of the partnership. Cleveland and another party were charged in federal district court with money laundering underand racketeering and conspiracy underin connection with a scheme to bribe state legislators to vote in a manner favorable to the video poker industry. Among the alleged predicate acts supporting these charges were four counts of violating the mail fraud statute (), which proscribed use of the mails in furtherance of any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining property by means of fraudulent representations. The indictment alleged that Cleveland: (1) had tax and financial problems that could have undermined his suitability to receive a video poker license, and