context: The defendant's argument is unpersuasive. The federal government is not inappropriately intervening in New York's affairs by prosecuting the defendant under the mail fraud statute -- the government is acting pursuant to the federal interest in protecting the United States Mails from misuse.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 865 F.2d 1352, 1359
citation_a.parenthetical: noting in dicta that the broad federal mail .statute punishes "any scheme or artifice to defraud in which the jurisdictional means-- the mails--are 'employed.'"
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. States, 488 F.2d 761, 766-67 (8th Cir.1973) (rejecting argument that mail fraud prosecution improperly intervened in state affairs, because “the focus of the statute is upon misuse of the Postal Service, not the regulation of state affairs, and Congress clearly has the authority to regulate such misuse of the mails.”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 909, 94 S.Ct. 2605, 41 L.Ed.2d 212 (1974); see also United States v. Porcelli 865 F.2d 1352, 1359 (2d Cir.1989) (noting in dicta that the broad federal mail .statute punishes “any scheme or artifice to defraud in which the jurisdictional means— the mails—are ‘employed.’”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 810, 110 S.Ct. 53, 107 L.Ed.2d 22 (1989). In view of the federal interest in protecting the mails from misuse, it does not violate any principles of federalism to prosecute the defendant under the mail fraud statute even if the underlying conduct is not criminalized by the State of New York.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: rejecting argument that mail fraud prosecution improperly intervened in state affairs, because "the focus of the statute is upon misuse of the Postal Service, not the regulation of state affairs, and Congress clearly has the authority to regulate such misuse of the mails."
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. States, 488 F.2d 761, 766-67 (8th Cir.1973) (rejecting argument that mail fraud prosecution improperly intervened in state affairs, because “the focus of the statute is upon misuse of the Postal Service, not the regulation of state affairs, and Congress clearly has the authority to regulate such misuse of the mails.”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 909, 94 S.Ct. 2605, 41 L.Ed.2d 212 (1974); see also United States v. Porcelli 865 F.2d 1352, 1359 (2d Cir.1989) (noting in dicta that the broad federal mail .statute punishes “any scheme or artifice to defraud in which the jurisdictional means— the mails—are ‘employed.’”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 810, 110 S.Ct. 53, 107 L.Ed.2d 22 (1989). In view of the federal interest in protecting the mails from misuse, it does not violate any principles of federalism to prosecute the defendant under the mail fraud statute even if the underlying conduct is not criminalized by the State of New York.