Legal Opinion
United States v. Meeks
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided November 13, 1995No. 94-11079PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:
At issue is whether employees of a locksmith company, which contracted with a bank to maintain its safe deposit boxes, can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 656, which proscribes theft by a bank officer, director, agent, employee, or other person “connected in any capacity with ” any federally insured bank. (Emphasis added.) Because we conclude that, in dismissing the indictment, the district court construed the statute too narrowly by holding that defendants Jesse Meeks and Kenny Hogue were not so connected, we REVERSE and REMAND.
I
The indictment, which…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Perrin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. Don C. Davis, United States of America v. Daniel M. BurkeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Oakley G. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- United States v. Norman K. Hughes, United States of America v. Nell ThompsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Andrews & Kurth L.L.P. v. Family Snacks, Inc. (In Re Pro-Snax Distributors, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
- United States v. Kenny Hogue and Jesse MeeksCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
- Intervest Corp v. MartinezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2004
- United States v. William J. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
- United States v. Samson Andrew Gillett, AKA Sammy GillettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.