Legal Opinion
United States v. Matthew G. Munksgard
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided January 30, 2019No. 16-17654PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEWSOM, Circuit Judge:
This criminal appeal presents both a surprisingly close question of evidentiary sufficiency-so close, in fact, that it has prompted a dissent-and an interesting statutory-interpretation issue. As to the former, federal law criminalizes the act of knowingly making a false statement in order to obtain a loan from a bank that is insured by the FDIC. 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Matthew Munksgard admits to knowingly making false statements in order to obtain bank loans-indeed, four times over. Even so, he contends, the government failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt, as it had to,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States v. CastlemanSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Robert C. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. ChastainCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- United States v. FrankCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2010
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. WeddCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
- United States v. James Maarvin HawkinsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
- United States v. Simon HongCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- United States v. OmotayoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025
- United States v. Darius Taurean CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.