Source: cases/18usc1341/f3d-917-668-us-v-hagen.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_917/0668_01/index.html
Each offense requires proof of intent to defraud, proof that the defendant willfully participated in a scheme with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and the intent to achieve illicit objectives.
Thus, the evidence did not establish either a scheme to defraud or Hagen's specific intent to defraud Robert Kriz when the grazing contract was mailed in April 2013.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the alleged use of the mail must be "sufficiently closely related to," and operate to further, the defendant's scheme.
Thus, the letters were not sent for the purpose of executing the alleged scheme to defraud these producers, for Hagen had already received their payments for cattle HBCC was not grazing.
Mailing the letters had no effect on the success or failure of the alleged scheme; it was already completed.
Based on this evidence, the jury reasonably found that Hagen had the intent to defraud Robert Berg.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/917/0668-01 name United States v. Hagen cite 917 F.3d 668 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit date 2019-02-28 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_917/0668_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl sha1=aa226b99ba16b5f8c421f3e45f44f7bb11fe8245 chars=20562 # single opinion (Loken, J.); one footnote appended at @20301. opinion op : majority by Loken @0..20562 controlling party p1 : Keith Hagen count c5 : Count 5, mail fraud: grazing contract mailed to Robert Kriz, April 2013 count c67 : Counts 6 and 7, mail fraud: August 2013 letters to Kriz and Stluka offering late grazing count c8 : Count 8, mail fraud: Robert Berg's mailed $35,000 check, May 2014 ? other: the opinion says "four counts of mail fraud" and "three counts of wire fraud"; from its count-by-count description Counts 5-8 are the mail counts and Counts 2-4 the wire counts (18 U.S.C. § 1343). Count 1 is the § 1349 conspiracy. Only the mail counts are recorded here. law 18usc1341 role applied posture criminal appeal from jury convictions (conspiracy, three wire-fraud and four mail-fraud counts); sufficiency of the evidence. Mail-fraud Counts 5, 6 and 7 vacated for insufficient evidence; mail-fraud Count 8 affirmed. result mixed element intent : not-satisfied [no-evidence] party p1 count c5 route breach-versus-fraud pattern advance payment taken for grazing later not provided, where leased land sufficed for this customer's herd and performance was later offered fact @12707..12862 [supports] | When the time came to bring the cattle to pasture a month later, Hagen said he did not have the land to graze the cattle or the money to refund the Krizes. fact @13376..13583 [cuts-against] | The trial evidence established that Hagen had enough land to graze Kriz's 50 cow-calf pairs for the 2013 grazing season, well within the default BIA ratio of 91.26 pairs for the land HBCC leased that season. fact @13584..13717 [cuts-against] | The letter Hagen sent in August offered to belatedly fulfill his end of the deal by grazing Kriz's cattle for the rest of the season. fact @13718..13804 [cuts-against absent] | The government failed to prove he had no intent or no ability to carry out that offer. rule @5405..5600 | Each offense requires proof of intent to defraud, proof that the defendant willfully participated in a scheme with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and the intent to achieve illicit objectives. held @13805..13970 | Thus, the evidence did not establish either a scheme to defraud or Hagen's specific intent to defraud Robert Kriz when the grazing contract was mailed in April 2013. gloss Jury conviction reversed for insufficiency: intent is measured when the contract was mailed; non-performance and no refund did not show a plan not to perform. The court speaks of "a scheme to defraud or ... specific intent" together; recorded under intent. ? route: the court does not use the words breach of contract for this count (it does for wire Count 3); the sub-question decided is the same - non-performance versus intent not to perform when the money was taken. element furtherance : not-satisfied [no-evidence] party p1 count c67 route after-fruition pattern apology letters offering belated performance, mailed months after the victims' payments were received; lulling theory rejected fact @14550..14757 [cuts-against] | The letters underlying Counts 6 and 7 were sent in August of 2013, some four months after Hagen received payments from Kriz and Stluka for 2013 grazing and three months after the start of the grazing season. fact @16022..16319 [cuts-against] | Indeed, when asked on direct exam what their responses were to this letter, Steve Stluka testified, "I just kind of laughed. ... I mean, it's too late," and Robert Kriz testified, "My honest reaction was, why do we want to take cattle down there? We've already lost $35,000 between the two of us." rule @14265..14407 | Under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the alleged use of the mail must be "sufficiently closely related to," and operate to further, the defendant's scheme. held @14758..14944 | Thus, the letters were not sent for the purpose of executing the alleged scheme to defraud these producers, for Hagen had already received their payments for cattle HBCC was not grazing. held @14945..15053 | Mailing the letters had no effect on the success or failure of the alleged scheme; it was already completed. gloss Jury conviction reversed for insufficiency. The government's lulling theory (Lane) failed because letters accepting responsibility and offering performance would not postpone complaints, and neither recipient testified to being lulled. element intent : satisfied [proved] party p1 count c8 route inferred-from-conduct pattern contracting to graze 100 pairs on 40 leased acres, repeating the assurance of sufficient land to obtain a second advance payment, then going silent fact @17053..17177 [supports] | At this time, HBCC had leased only 40 acres of pasture, which could support 6.67 cow-calf pairs under the BIA default ratio. fact @17553..17680 [supports] | In response, Hagen repeatedly called the Bergs, assuring them he had enough leased land but insisting on full payment up front. fact @17905..17976 [supports] | The Bergs grazed no cattle on HBCC pasture and never received a refund. fact @18703..18842 [supports] | Moreover, Holy Bull testified that she and Hagen knew the land could not support the cattle they agreed to graze but took the money anyway. fact @19051..19175 [cuts-against] | However, in June 2014, Hagen had only administratively appealed the BIA's decisions to lease HBCC only 40 acres that season. rule @18550..18675 [quoted] | As this was a victim who suffered tangible loss, "the scheme itself ... serve[d] as evidence of [Hagen's] intent to defraud." held @17977..18076 | Based on this evidence, the jury reasonably found that Hagen had the intent to defraud Robert Berg. ? polarity: the pending BIA appeal is the fact Hagen relied on for an honest expectation of more land (cuts-against); the quoted sentence is the court discounting it gloss Sufficiency upheld on the mail count (and the paired wire Count 4). The pending BIA appeal is the only fact Hagen offered for an honest expectation of more land; the court held it could not have been decided before the season. misfit Flash's two blocks (furtherance and intent on "mail fraud Count 3") were removed: Count 3 (cashing Penner's check) is a WIRE-fraud count under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as is Count 2. The court's "breach of contract is not fraud" sentence (@11661..11894, quoted as an intent rule in 18usc1341.law) was written about that wire count; it is not quoted here.