Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Appellee, v. Cheryl K. Hao, A.k.a. Kookie Hao, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 808 F.2d 36
Submitted Dec. 9, 1986.Decided Jan. 9, 1987.Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1987
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota; Edward J. Devitt, Judge.
Jack Nordby, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Paul Murphy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and CONMY,* District Judge.
CONMY, District Judge.
Cheryl Hao appeals her conviction for mail and wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property. Hao challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against her.
When considering an appeal from a jury conviction, we must view the evidence which was before the jury in the light most favorable to the government, and give the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can logically be drawn. We must overturn the jury's verdict only if the evidence so viewed is such that a reasonable-minded jury must have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the government's proof of one of the essential elements of the offense. United States v. Noibi, 780 F.2d 1419, 1421 (8th Cir.1986).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and find that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.