Legal Opinion

United States v. Waldemar Ratzlaf, United States of America v. Loretta Ratzlaf

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 6, 1992No. 91-10392, 10429PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POOLE, Circuit Judge:

Defendants Loretta and Waldemar Ratz-laf appeal their convictions for structuring financial transactions to avoid currency reporting requirements, a violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5322(a), 5324(3). They argue that Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991), overrules our holding in United States v. Hoyland, 914 F.2d 1125 (9th Cir.1990), that the government does not have to prove that the defendants knew structuring is illegal to convict. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

I

Defendants Waldemar and Loretta Ratz-laf,…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  2. United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Cheek v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Liparota v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. United States v. MurdockSupreme Court of the United States · 1934

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Ratzlaf v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Nir Goldeshtein v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
  3. United States v. Rodney Rogers, A/K/A Koseem C. SandersCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
  4. United States v. Daniel F. Aversa, United States of America v. Vincent Mento, United States of America v. William J. DonovanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
  5. United States v. OverholtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API