Source: cases/NOTES-Flash3.md
# Flash3 extraction notes
Author alias: `Flash3`
Model: `gemini-3.8-flash-high`
## Overview
Flash3 autonomously extracted and verified 49 new case files across 8 assigned federal statutes in accordance with `neov2/specs/CHARTER.md` and `neov2/specs/flash_extract.md`. All quotes were verified against immutable IR caselaw slices with zero character drift and zero paragraph-spanning breaks. All files conform to CASE DSL 1.2 with `route` and `pattern` specifications, achieving 0 errors under `casedsl.py check`.
The 8 assigned statutes:
1. `15usc78j` (Securities Exchange Act § 10(b) / SEC Rule 10b-5) -- 6 cases
2. `15usc1125` (Lanham Act § 43(a) false designation / false advertising) -- 6 cases
3. `18usc1341` (Mail fraud) -- 6 cases
4. `18usc1343` (Wire fraud) -- 6 cases
5. `18usc922` (Firearms possession by prohibited persons, § 922(g)) -- 6 cases
6. `18usc924` (Firearms penalties/offenses, § 924(c) crime of violence) -- 6 cases
7. `29usc158` (National Labor Relations Act § 8 unfair labor practices) -- 7 cases
8. `21usc846` (Controlled Substances Act attempt and conspiracy) -- 6 cases
---
## 1. 15 U.S.C. § 78j (Securities Exchange Act § 10(b) / Rule 10b-5)
6 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-910-198-sec-v-sethi.case`: 5th Cir. (2018); SEC civil enforcement action; oil and gas development fund scheme; promoter made material misrepresentations regarding well production and diverted investor funds to personal accounts; scienter established by severe recklessness/knowledge (`misrepresentation : satisfied [proved]`, `scienter : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-915-975-alaska-elec-pension-fund-v-flotek.case`: 5th Cir. (2019); PSLRA securities class action; software algorithm errors in proprietary oilfield data reporting; scienter affirmed as lacking strong inference where errors were technical defects rather than intentional fraud (`scienter : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f3d-927-710-fan-v-stonemor-partners.case`: 4th Cir. (2019); PSLRA securities class action against cemetery operator; challenge to public statements regarding distribution coverage and cash flow; dismissed for failure to plead false statements of present fact rather than non-actionable optimism and accurate historical disclosures (`misrepresentation : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f3d-931-966-cftc-v-monex-credit.case`: 9th Cir. (2019); `role comparator`; CFTC enforcement action under CEA § 6(c)(1); court adopted SEC Rule 10b-5 jurisprudence to interpret Commodity Exchange Act anti-fraud provisions (`misrepresentation : not-reached`).
- `f3d-935-424-mun-employees-v-pier-1.case`: 5th Cir. (2019); PSLRA class action against retail chain leadership; inventory markdown accounting and supply chain disruption; dismissed under PSLRA heightened pleading standard for lack of strong inference of scienter (`scienter : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f-supp-3d-354-384-fries-v-northern-oil-and-gas.case`: S.D.N.Y. (2019); PSLRA class action against energy producer regarding CEO conflict of interest and margin calls; loss causation sufficiently pled based on corrective disclosures and stock drops (`loss-causation : satisfied [pleaded]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (15 U.S.C. § 78j)
- `f3d-931-966-cftc-v-monex-credit.case`: The case arises under Commodity Exchange Act § 6(c)(1) (7 U.S.C. § 9(1)), which explicitly modeled its language on Exchange Act § 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5. Coded `role comparator` with element `misrepresentation : not-reached [procedural]`.
- Pleading standard: Under the PSLRA (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)), private actions require a "strong inference" of scienter and particularity for misstatements; dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) are coded `[pleaded]`.
---
## 2. 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (Lanham Act § 43(a))
6 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-921-1343-hard-candy-v-anastasia.case`: 11th Cir. (2019); reverse-confusion trademark infringement claim regarding cosmetic makeup palettes ("Hard Candy"); 7th Amendment jury trial entitlement on defendant's profits remedy (`commerce : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-933-202-4-pillar-dynasty-v-new-york-and-co.case`: 2d Cir. (2019); willful trademark infringement and counterfeit apparel sales under § 43(a); statutory damages under Lanham Act § 35(c) and willfulness standard (`commerce : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f4th-142-338-reed-v-marshall.case`: 9th Cir. (2025); false designation of origin and authorship regarding co-written musical composition; dismissal under Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox affirmed because § 43(a) protects tangible goods, not intangible ideas or copyright authorship (`origin-falsity : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f-supp-3d-371-355-outlaw-laboratory-v-shenoor.case`: N.D. Tex. (2019); false advertising regarding male enhancement dietary supplements sold in convenience stores; motion to dismiss denied on Lanham Act commercial advertising allegations (`commercial-advertising : satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f-supp-3d-381-175-niagara-bottling-v-cc1.case`: D.P.R. (2019); false advertising and product disparagement in bottled water market; motion to dismiss denied as to affirmative false representations regarding manufacturing and contamination (`false-statement : satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f-supp-3d-383-343-ep-henry-v-cambridge-pavers.case`: D.N.J. (2019); false advertising between competing paver and hardscaping manufacturers; comparative advertising claims regarding product durability and testing (`commercial-advertising : satisfied [pleaded]`, `injury : satisfied [pleaded]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (15 U.S.C. § 1125)
- `f4th-142-338-reed-v-marshall.case`: The Dastar doctrine bars using Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(A) "origin of goods" as a back-door copyright or authorship attribution claim for creative works. Coded `origin-falsity : not-satisfied [pleaded]` with top-level misfit noting Dastar boundary.
- Lanham Act remedies: Cases like *Hard Candy* and *4 Pillar Dynasty* litigate statutory profits and willfulness; the underlying liability claims are § 43(a) trademark infringement in interstate commerce.
---
## 3. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud)
6 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-913-332-us-v-hird.case`: 3d Cir. (2019); Philadelphia Traffic Court ticket-fixing scheme; mail fraud convictions based on municipal mailing of notices and receipts to favored constituents (`mailing : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-914-1154-us-v-seng-xiong.case`: 8th Cir. (2019); fraudulent Hmong homeland resettlement investment scheme targeting elderly refugees; mailings of investment kits and documentation (`scheme-to-defraud : satisfied [proved]`, `mailing : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-917-668-us-v-hagen.case`: 5th Cir. (2019); military health care (TRICARE) compounding pharmacy kickback and fraud scheme; private carrier mailings of patient prescription supplies (`mailing : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-919-437-kanter-v-barr.case`: 7th Cir. (2019); `role comparator`; Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession ban brought by non-violent mail fraud convict (therapeutic shoe insert Medicare billing fraud) (`scheme-to-defraud : not-reached`).
- `f3d-922-762-us-v-petlechkov.case`: 8th Cir. (2019); Cisco equipment warranty replacement fraud scheme; unauthorized commercial carrier mailings of substitute hardware parts (`mailing : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f4th-143-146-us-v-runner.case`: 4th Cir. (2025); mass-marketing fraudulent psychic sweepstakes notification letters sent through U.S. Mail to vulnerable consumers (`scheme-to-defraud : satisfied [proved]`, `mailing : satisfied [proved]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (18 U.S.C. § 1341)
- `f3d-919-437-kanter-v-barr.case`: Mail fraud is cited as the felony conviction predicate triggering § 922(g)(1) firearm disability in a constitutional Second Amendment challenge; coded `role comparator` with issue `scheme-to-defraud : not-reached [procedural]`.
- Mailings by innocent intermediaries / carriers: Under *Pereira* and *Schmuck*, mailings by private carriers (FedEx, UPS) or government agencies (Traffic Court) satisfy § 1341 where caused by defendant and incident to an essential part of the scheme.
---
## 4. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud)
6 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-912-422-us-v-corrigan.case`: 7th Cir. (2019); short-sale mortgage fraud scheme; false affidavits to lenders to induce short sales for below-market purchase; wire transfer of mortgage payoff funds (`intent-to-defraud : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-915-493-us-v-boliaux.case`: 7th Cir. (2019); condominium construction and escrow embezzlement scheme; interstate bank wire transfers of escrow proceeds (`scheme-to-defraud : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-926-361-us-v-buncich.case`: 7th Cir. (2019); county sheriff towing contract bribery and kickback scheme; honest services wire fraud under § 1346 and property wire fraud under § 1343 (`transmission : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-931-1245-us-v-feldman.case`: 9th Cir. (2019); probate trust accounting and estate asset diversion scheme; interstate banking transmissions (`scheme-to-defraud : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-932-40-us-v-lebedev.case`: 2d Cir. (2019); unlicensed Bitcoin exchange (Coin.mx) payment processing fraud; miscoding credit card transactions through front organizations; post-trial invalidation of "right to control" theory under *Ciminelli* addressed (`scheme-to-defraud : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f-supp-3d-374-361-fleetwood-services-v-complete-business.case`: S.D.N.Y. (2019); civil RICO action predicated on wire fraud; merchant cash advance factoring agreements; dismissal under Rule 9(b) for failure to plead misrepresentations with particularity (`scheme-to-defraud : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (18 U.S.C. § 1343)
- `f3d-932-40-us-v-lebedev.case`: The Second Circuit originally affirmed under its "right to control" theory of property fraud. The Supreme Court subsequently invalidated that theory in *Ciminelli v. United States* (2023). However, the Second Circuit in *Lebedev* alternatively affirmed on traditional tangible property and economic harm grounds (exposure of financial institutions to chargeback and regulatory liability). Coded `scheme-to-defraud : satisfied [proved]` with explicit top-level misfit detailing *Ciminelli*.
- `f-supp-3d-374-361-fleetwood-services-v-complete-business.case`: Civil RICO complaint asserting wire fraud predicates based on usurious interest rates in merchant cash advances; dismissed because contract terms were fully disclosed and civil breach does not constitute a fraudulent scheme.
---
## 5. 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Firearms Possession by Prohibited Persons, § 922(g))
6 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-934-854-us-v-gilliam.case`: 8th Cir. (2019); § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession; dual-count indictment involving two separate firearms (Kimber pistol and Ruger rifle); jury convicted on Kimber pistol (sufficient constructive possession via DNA and location) but acquitted on Ruger rifle (`possession : satisfied [proved]`, `possession : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f3d-935-838-us-v-mcadory.case`: 9th Cir. (2019); § 922(g)(1) predicate felony determination; state court misdemeanor and Washington State felony convictions with statutory maximums exceeding 1 year but guideline ranges below 1 year; held not a qualifying felony under § 921(20) / § 922(g)(1) (`status.g1 : not-satisfied [law]`).
- `f4th-142-872-us-v-watson.case`: 4th Cir. (2025); § 922(g)(1) felon in possession; Rehaif knowledge-of-status challenge following prior felony conviction; conceded possession and interstate commerce (`knowledge-possession : satisfied [conceded]`, `commerce-possession : satisfied [conceded]`).
- `f4th-142-1075-us-v-deng.case`: 4th Cir. (2025); § 922(g)(3) unlawful user of controlled substances (marijuana) in possession of firearm; regular drug use established by admissions, test-firing weapon, and positive drug screens (`status.g3.user : satisfied [proved]`, `possession : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f4th-142-1270-us-v-edwards.case`: 4th Cir. (2025); § 922(g)(1) felon in possession; stop-and-frisk Terry stop challenge; conceded interstate nexus (`commerce-possession : satisfied [conceded]`).
- `f4th-143-169-us-v-thompson.case`: 4th Cir. (2025); § 922(g)(1) felon in possession; Rehaif plain-error challenge; conceded status knowledge based on 10-year prison sentence served (`knowledge-status : satisfied [conceded]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (18 U.S.C. § 922)
- `f3d-935-838-us-v-mcadory.case`: Washington State sentencing system sets a statutory maximum of 5 years for Class C felonies, but the mandatory state guidelines maximum for defendant's offender score was under 12 months. Under Ninth Circuit law, because the sentencing judge had no authority to exceed the guideline ceiling without special jury findings, the offense did not qualify as a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. Coded `status.g1 : not-satisfied [law]`.
- Rehaif issues: Cases from 2019-2025 frequently litigate *Rehaif* knowledge-of-status challenges on plain error; when defendants concede having served substantial prison time, `knowledge-status` is coded `[conceded]`.
---
## 6. 18 U.S.C. § 924 (Penalties / § 924(c) Firearms in Relation to Crimes of Violence)
6 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-218-409-us-v-ceballos-torres.case`: 5th Cir. (2000); foundational Fifth Circuit precedent interpreting 1998 "in furtherance of" statutory amendment to § 924(c)(1); loaded firearm on bed in plain view in close proximity to distribution quantities of cocaine and cash (`furtherance : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-933-796-us-v-brazier.case`: 7th Cir. (2019); § 924(c) conviction predicated on conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery; residual clause held unconstitutionally vague under *United States v. Davis* (2019) and conspiracy fails elements clause (`predicate.violence : not-satisfied [law]`).
- `f3d-934-1033-us-v-begay.case`: 9th Cir. (2019); § 924(c) conviction predicated on second-degree murder in Indian country; court held second-degree murder can be committed with extreme recklessness and therefore failed elements clause under Ninth Circuit precedent (`predicate.violence : not-satisfied [law]`).
- `f4th-141-1136-us-v-butler.case`: 4th Cir. (2025); § 924(c) conviction predicated on federal carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119); held carjacking categorically requires threatened or actual use of violent physical force under § 924(c)(3)(A) (`predicate.violence : satisfied [law]`).
- `f4th-142-606-us-v-myore.case`: 10th Cir. (2025); § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) 7-year mandatory minimum brandishing enhancement; pointing handgun at robbery victims during home invasion (`penalty.brandish : satisfied [proved]`).
- `us-604-423-delligatti-v-us.case`: Supreme Court of the United States (2025); § 924(c)(3)(A) elements clause; VICAR attempted murder in aid of racketeering; held intentional causation of bodily injury or death by act or omission necessarily involves the use of physical force (`predicate.violence : satisfied [law]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (18 U.S.C. § 924)
- `us-604-423-delligatti-v-us.case`: Supreme Court resolved circuit split regarding whether crimes that can be committed by omission (e.g. failing to provide medical care) qualify under § 924(c)(3)(A) elements clause. The Court affirmed that bodily injury causation always requires physical force, satisfying the elements clause.
- `f3d-933-796-us-v-brazier.case` & `f3d-934-1033-us-v-begay.case`: Invalidation of the residual clause § 924(c)(3)(B) in *Davis* meant predicate offenses had to satisfy § 924(c)(3)(A) elements clause; Hobbs Act conspiracy failed categorically. Coded `predicate.violence : not-satisfied [law]`.
---
## 7. 29 U.S.C. § 158 (NLRA § 8 Unfair Labor Practices)
7 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-909-427-capital-med-ctr.case`: D.C. Cir. (2018); hospital unfair labor practices; off-duty employee distribution of union leaflets in lobby and non-patient corridors protected under § 7; employer interference under § 8(a)(1) (`protected-right : satisfied [proved]`, `interference : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-910-725-imagefirst.case`: 3d Cir. (2018); union organizing drive; supervisor coercive interrogation and threats of plant closure; § 8(a)(1) interference sustained, but unsupported general threat allegations reversed (`interference : satisfied [proved]`, `interference : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f3d-916-555-airgas.case`: 5th Cir. (2019); § 8(a)(4) and § 8(a)(3) retaliatory discharge; employee terminated after participating in NLRB unfair labor practice hearing; pretext established (`board-participation : satisfied [proved]`, `retaliatory-action : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-918-126-univ-of-s-cal.case`: D.C. Cir. (2019); non-tenure-track university faculty union representation petition; employer argued faculty were managerial employees exempt under *NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ.*; D.C. Circuit vacated Board certification for applying improper Pacific Lutheran University standard (`covered-employee : not-reached`).
- `f3d-925-1272-directsat.case`: 7th Cir. (2019); satellite installation contractors; § 8(a)(5) refusal to bargain following Board union certification; challenge to election ballots rejected (`refusal-to-bargain : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-929-321-firstenergy.case`: 4th Cir. (2019); power generation utility bargaining dispute; unilateral implementation of paid time off changes during contract negotiations; § 8(a)(5) refusal to bargain sustained as to unreached impasse, but reversed as to matters covered by management-rights clause (`refusal-to-bargain : satisfied [proved]`, `refusal-to-bargain : not-satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-929-610-st-paul-park.case`: 8th Cir. (2019); oil refinery safety coordinator discharge; employee participated in safety walkthrough during union contract dispute; Wright Line mixed-motive analysis; employer failed to establish affirmative defense that it would have fired him absent protected activity (`protected-right : satisfied [proved]`, `defense same-decision : not-satisfied [proved]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (29 U.S.C. § 158)
- `f3d-918-126-univ-of-s-cal.case`: *Yeshiva* managerial exemption: whether university faculty are covered employees or exempt managerial personnel. The D.C. Circuit remanded to the NLRB because the Board failed to properly apply *Yeshiva* and the court's prior precedent. Coded `covered-employee : not-reached [procedural]`.
- `defense same-decision`: In `29usc158.law`, the Wright Line affirmative defense is declared as `defense same-decision`, requiring `defense same-decision : not-satisfied [proved]` rather than an `element` keyword.
---
## 8. 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Controlled Substances Act Attempt and Conspiracy)
6 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-919-716-us-v-lyle.case`: 2d Cir. (2019); multi-kilo cocaine and heroin trafficking organization; co-defendant challenged conspiracy sufficiency under buyer-seller rule; repeat wholesale quantities on credit, advance planning, and shared trap cars established conspiratorial agreement (`agreement : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-922-787-us-v-moreno.case`: 7th Cir. (2019); wholesale heroin and cocaine distribution network; co-defendant courier argued mere customer/buyer-seller relationship; repeat multi-kilogram purchases on credit and shared stash house/trap cars established agreement (`agreement : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-922-1071-us-v-montijo-dominguez.case`: 10th Cir. (2019); multi-kilogram cocaine transaction; defendants argued lack of profit motive precluded common objective; court held profit motive merely distinguishes end-users under buyer-seller rule, and countersurveillance/flight supported agreement and knowledge (`agreement : satisfied [proved]`, `knowledge : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-935-232-us-v-norman.case`: 8th Cir. (2019); `role comparator`; sentencing enhancement categorical approach comparing prior 21 U.S.C. § 846 conspiracy conviction with generic conspiracy; held § 846 conspiracy requires no overt act under *Shabani*, distinguishing it from generic conspiracy (`agreement : not-reached`).
- `f-supp-3d-365-215-us-v-guzman-ortiz.case`: D. Mass. (2019); post-verdict Rule 29 judgment of acquittal; defendant's presence in apartment during DEA raid and attempting to hide package of heroin did not support reasonable inference of agreement to join distribution conspiracy (`agreement : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f-supp-3d-367-286-us-v-delgado.case`: M.D. Pa. (2019); multi-count drug and sex trafficking indictment; Rule 29 motion denied on § 846 conspiracy; distribution of drugs to victims as payment and driver participation established agreement and intentional joinder (`agreement : satisfied [proved]`, `intentional-joinder : satisfied [proved]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (21 U.S.C. § 846)
- `f-supp-3d-365-215-us-v-guzman-ortiz.case`: Senior Judge Zobel presided over a District of Massachusetts criminal trial, but the IR caselaw header metadata recorded "United States District Court for the District of Columbia". The case header preserved the exact IR header to satisfy parser checks, with an explicit `misfit` explaining the discrepancy. Furthermore, post-verdict Rule 29 judgment of acquittal setting aside a jury conviction resulted in `result claimant-lost` (government is the claimant).
- `f3d-935-232-us-v-norman.case`: Discusses the rule of *United States v. Shabani*, 513 U.S. 10 (1994), that § 846 requires no overt act, unlike 18 U.S.C. § 371. The case used § 846 as a comparator predicate in a categorical-approach sentencing analysis, coded `role comparator` with `scope merits` and `route _procedural`.
- Buyer-seller rule: Under *Potter*, *Moreno*, *Lyle*, and *Montijo-Dominguez*, a single arms-length transaction does not create a conspiracy, but repeat wholesale transactions, purchases on credit, and shared logistics support the inference of a tacit agreement to distribute.
---
## Verification Summary
All 49 cases across the 8 statutes pass verification cleanly:
```bash
NEOV2_CORPUS=/home/mma/repos/neochart/neochartdocroot python3 neov2/tools/casedsl.py check \
neov2/cases/15usc78j/ \
neov2/cases/15usc1125/ \
neov2/cases/18usc1341/ \
neov2/cases/18usc1343/ \
neov2/cases/18usc922/ \
neov2/cases/18usc924/ \
neov2/cases/29usc158/ \
neov2/cases/21usc846/
# Output: 134 files, 1142 quotes, 0 errors
```
All updated `VARIANTS.md` catalogues reflect the verified case additions.