U.S. v. Dingle

In prosecution on mail fraud and money laundering charges stemming from defendants’ scheme to obtain $2.6 million in Dep’t. of Public Health grant funds that had been earmarked to provide for health services, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in submitting defendant’s proffered instruction that informed jury that they “should” rather than “must” find defendant not guilty of said offenses if govt. failed to prove any element of charged offenses. Defendant waived issue by proffering instant jury instruction that was accepted by Dist. Ct., and instant jury instruction did not otherwise violate defendant’s 5^th Amendment rights through the use of word “should” rather than “must.” Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting evidence of defendant’s sexual encounters with employee of Dept. and employee of entity that helped to channel money to said defendant, since said evidence demonstrated how defendant was able to carry out his scheme. Record also contained sufficient evidence to support mail fraud and money laundering convictions for second defendant, even though she argued that she was unaware of said scheme and played only minor role, since record showed that said defendant used funds from said scheme to purchase Mercedes-Benz and to assist son with his mortgage, and where govt. presented evidence of specific incidents that revealed that said defendant was aware of broader scheme to divert funds.