Statutory mailing or carrier act

AND · 18usc1341:mails

Alternative statutory acts are placing, depositing/causing deposit, taking/receiving, or knowingly causing delivery; they are not cumulative requirements. USPS use need not itself cross a state line; the alternative private/commercial carrier must meet the statutory interstate-carrier description. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1228–1229 (9th Cir. 1996), applies Pereira's construction of causation: personal mailing or specific intent to use the mails is unnecessary where ordinary-course use is known or reasonably foreseeable. The causation inquiry is distinct from whether the mailing executes the scheme; mere foreseeability of a mailing does not establish furtherance. Hubbard's conspiracy posture does not import agreement or overt-act elements here.

Exact element source

places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1341; Unicode character offsets [584:650] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74b1f92847676f0dece4359c6b22244b8e760d8e46a597847855747fcd542511.

any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1341; Unicode character offsets [652:726] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74b1f92847676f0dece4359c6b22244b8e760d8e46a597847855747fcd542511.

or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1341; Unicode character offsets [728:866] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74b1f92847676f0dece4359c6b22244b8e760d8e46a597847855747fcd542511.

or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1341; Unicode character offsets [868:924] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74b1f92847676f0dece4359c6b22244b8e760d8e46a597847855747fcd542511.

or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1341; Unicode character offsets [926:1141] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74b1f92847676f0dece4359c6b22244b8e760d8e46a597847855747fcd542511.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
postal-service	Sending or delivery by the Postal Service.	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	0	No annotation uses in this snapshot
postal-service/county-recorder-mails-recorded-deeds-to-parties		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied
postal-service/custom-and-practice-proof-of-document-never-shown-to-exist		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not
postal-service/mailing-by-third-party-reasonably-foreseeable-to-defendant		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f2d/664/0161-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — satisfied
postal-service/stipulated-use-of-mails-in-sales-operation		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied
private-carrier	Deposit or delivery by a private or commercial interstate carrier, under the operative statutory language.	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	0	No annotation uses in this snapshot
Unspecified variant	No variant assigned in the database.	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/912/0404-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — background/merits; /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — applied/merits; /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — background/merits

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
Case	Element	Holding and scope	Variant	Exact source quotations
/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012	Statutory mailing or carrier act	not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits Plaintiffs asserted 41 specific dated mail or wire communications; the court never reaches the mailing element because no scheme to defraud is pleaded.	Unspecified variant	No source quotation recorded for this block.
/f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989	Statutory mailing or carrier act	not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits Two mailings alleged (district mailed the application to the Department of Revenue; the Department mailed the permit back); not contested.	Unspecified variant	No source quotation recorded for this block.
/f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967	Statutory mailing or carrier act	satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded Use of the mails was stipulated; each count charged a mailing of a letter or printed matter to a named purchaser.	postal-service/stipulated-use-of-mails-in-sales-operation	It was stipulated prior to trial that appellant used the mail in connection with his land sales. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01`; Unicode character offsets [985:1081] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) The company, through Lustiger, informed all customers that mail should be sent to the company at P.O. Box 13349, Phoenix, Arizona. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01`; Unicode character offsets [2409:2539] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)
/f2d/664/0161-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981	Statutory mailing or carrier act	satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded "Knowingly causes to be delivered by mail" limb: the mailings were made by Wisconsin dealers to the State Department of Transportation; causation by reasonable foreseeability was found sufficient by the district court and is endorsed in a footnote, not separately contested on appeal. No separate `held` sentence beyond the rule line. CAVEAT: thin authority. The block rests on one footnote sentence approving the district court's view on a point the appeal did not put in issue (the appeal concerned only "for the purpose of executing"); basis is [conceded], not a reviewed sufficiency ruling.	postal-service/mailing-by-third-party-reasonably-foreseeable-to-defendant	These title applications constituted the requisite mailings which supported the mail fraud indictment. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_664.jsonl#/f2d/664/0161-01`; Unicode character offsets [1648:1750] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `f61558d6d9d4966e7953a5e92fe1d9854c9d6b5b221f27d0c6da8139133e1ae4`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) As the district court noted, the evidence supported the finding that Galloway caused the mailings at issue, in the sense that he could reasonably have foreseen their occurrence. This, of course, is the only causation required by the mail fraud statute. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_664.jsonl#/f2d/664/0161-01`; Unicode character offsets [16987:17239] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `f61558d6d9d4966e7953a5e92fe1d9854c9d6b5b221f27d0c6da8139133e1ae4`. Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)
/f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000	Statutory mailing or carrier act	not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; count: Count 13 (Hugo property; Truth in Lending disclosure allegedly mailed by lender GSM); subject: count=Count 13 (Hugo property; Truth in Lending disclosure allegedly mailed by lender GSM) Custom-and-practice evidence can prove mailing of a document shown to have entered the mail stream (Brackenridge, Green), but not where the jury must also infer that the document was ever created; unexplained absence of any copy or record of a legally required document supports a negative inference.	postal-service/custom-and-practice-proof-of-document-never-shown-to-exist	The GSM witnesses explained that when the mortgage company receives an application, it generates the document and, within three days from receipt of the application, sends it to the borrower. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [7877:8068] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) The GSM witnesses also testified that because the law requires this document, GSM has a series of provisions in place to insure that it is mailed, including cross-checks by other loan departments. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [8069:8265] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) No copy of the Truth in Lending notice in question was introduced at trial. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [8359:8434] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) No GSM witness testified that he or anyone else at the company had ever seen the specific, critical document, that there was any record that it had ever existed, that it was ever in GSM’s loan files (whether at the time of trial or earlier) or that the loan file was ever complete. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [8435:8716] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Moreover, although the Bautistas, the putative borrowers, also testified at trial, they did not state that they had ever received the document, and they, also, did not produce a copy of it. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [8717:8906] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Obviously, as the chain of inferences based on usual practices gets longer, the probability that nothing went wrong in administering those practices lessens. At some point, a reasonable doubt arises concerning whether, as Murphy’s Law predicts, that which can go wrong did go wrong. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [11768:12050] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Yet, the mailing is, of course, an essential element of the crime, and is the gatekeeper for separating those cases that are the exclusive province of the states from those that may be tried in federal court under the mail fraud statute. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [14611:14848] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) We therefore conclude that in this case the evidence of the required mailing is far too tenuous to be sufficient, and reverse Lo’s conviction on Count Thirteen accordingly. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [15177:15349] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)
/f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000	Statutory mailing or carrier act	satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; count: Counts 4-7 and 9-11 (MacArthur and 79th Avenue properties; deeds mailed by the County Recorder); subject: count=Counts 4-7 and 9-11 (MacArthur and 79th Avenue properties; deeds mailed by the County Recorder) The fact of mailing was undisputed; the court adds (footnote) that the defendant "caused" a third party's routine mailing because an experienced broker would know recorded deeds are mailed.	postal-service/county-recorder-mails-recorded-deeds-to-parties	After the “sales” closed, the Alameda County Recorder’s office mailed the original grant deeds to Aglibot and Bosnich, the original deeds of trust to CMS and BHSC, and, some time later, a grant deed from Elma Aglibot to Jayson Bryant. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [3994:4228] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Lo does not dispute that the County Recorder mailed deeds to the lenders and to the owners, real and sham, of the two Oakland properties. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [16625:16762] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Printed at the top of the recording documents were specific instructions to the Recorder to mail the deed to the appropriate party when recorded. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [37248:37393] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) . That Lo did not herself specifically plan the mailing is immaterial. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01`; Unicode character offsets [36903:36973] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)
/f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994	Statutory mailing or carrier act	not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits No substantive mail fraud count; mail fraud appears only as an object of the 371 conspiracy, and no mailing is described.	Unspecified variant	No source quotation recorded for this block.
/f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010	Statutory mailing or carrier act	not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services) The charged mailing was sent by the bribe-payer himself: his notice to neighbours required for the rezoning. Not challenged on appeal.	Unspecified variant	No source quotation recorded for this block.

Court interpretations

interpretation

Instead, if the defendant “does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended, then he ‘causes’ the mails to be used.”

/f3d/96/1223-01

Instead, if the defendant “does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended, then he ‘causes’ the mails to be used.”

Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_96.jsonl#/f3d/96/1223-01; Unicode character offsets [16365:16613] (end exclusive); SHA-256 40ad10d4b2591f25e735d6fbc670ebb8bf34e0b506150aa9c6cebd61cbf2fd74.