United States v. Robert S. Kelem, United States of America v. Barnett Gartrell

Following their convictions of several offenses under the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , Kelem and Gartrell brought appeals which we have consolidated. They insist that the statute does not proscribe the particular fraud which they practiced.

It is elementary that the jurisdiction of federal courts is defined and limited by the Constitution and congressional action; hence, statutes such as section 1341 should be carefully and strictly construed in order to avoid extension beyond the limits intended by Congress. Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 270 , 54 S.Ct. 700 , 78 L.Ed. 1248 (1933); Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234 , 43 S.Ct. 79 , 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922). Moreover, such construction is especially appropriate where, as here, the Government urges that we construe a federal criminal statute so that it reaches conduct which the states should appropriately control and which they can control, effectively. Indeed as the Supreme Court has emphasized, section 1341 is not designed to reach all frauds “but only those limited instances in which the use of the mails is a part of the execution of the fraud, leaving all other cases to be dealt with by appropriate state…