Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

US v. Schaffer, No. 09-3053

By FindLaw Staff on November 12, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

District court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment for conspiracy to commit computer fraud is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not properly preserve his factual specificity of the indictment argument; 2) defendant failed to establish that the face of the indictment failed to charge the elements of a federal offense; 3) no violation of the statute of limitations occurred as the indictment was returned within five years of the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy; 4) defendant failed to demonstrate that he was actually prejudiced by a pre-indictment delay; and 5) the district court committed no error in denying defendant's motion to dismiss based upon entrapment as a matter of law.   

Read US v. Schaffer, No. 09-3053

Appellate Information

Argued: July 29, 2009

Decided and Filed: November 12, 2009


Opinion by District Judge Vantatenhove


For Appellant:  Richard G. Lillie, Lillie & Holderman, Cleveland, Ohio

For Appellee:  Daniel R. Ranke, Assistant US Attorney, Cleveland, Ohio

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard