## Facts

- George William Bradshaw II was the former commander of the West Virginia State Police detachment in Martinsburg and had supervisory authority over evidence-room procedures.
- Officers documented seized property using an evidence report (Form 109) and a property disposition report (Form 31), which were stored in evidence-room binders with related records.
- An audit revealed seized cash was missing in 20 cases; the prosecution presented detailed proof concerning several missing-cash seizures.
- The government alleged Bradshaw took seized cash and concealed the thefts by manipulating reporting mechanisms.
- West Virginia agencies were required to submit unclaimed-property reports to the state treasurer.
- The government alleged Bradshaw mailed an unclaimed-property report falsely stating there was no unclaimed property at the Martinsburg detachment, despite evidence that some seized cash should have been reported.
- A federal grand jury indicted Bradshaw for one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
- After a four-day trial, a jury convicted Bradshaw; the district court denied a motion for judgment of acquittal and imposed a 15-month prison term and three years of supervised release.
- On appeal, Bradshaw challenged the sufficiency of the evidence (particularly whether the mailing furthered the scheme) and the admission of evidence about a theft not charged in the indictment.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that the unclaimed-property mailing was “for the purpose of executing” the fraudulent scheme or “incident to an essential part of the scheme” under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence concerning an uncharged theft, allegedly as improper other-acts evidence or as unfairly prejudicial.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find that the mailing of the false unclaimed-property report furthered the scheme by helping conceal the theft and reduce the risk of detection.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of an uncharged theft because it was relevant to proving the existence and operation of the alleged scheme and was not unfairly prejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- Mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 requires a scheme to defraud and a mailing used “for the purpose of executing” the scheme, including mailings that are incident to an essential part of the scheme such as concealment or delaying detection.
- On sufficiency review, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and upholds the verdict if any rational jury could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; scheme-related acts not charged in the indictment may be admissible to show the existence, intent, or execution of the scheme, subject to limits on unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld Bradshaw’s mail-fraud conviction, concluding that a false unclaimed-property report mailed to state authorities could satisfy § 1341’s mailing element when it functioned to conceal thefts, and that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting additional scheme-related theft evidence beyond the charged conduct.


United States v. Bradshaw, 282 F. App’x 264 (4th Cir. 2008)