The Court previously considered this case in Shaw v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 462 (2016), where it held that a scheme to defraud a financial institution under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1) must be one to deceive the bank and deprive it of something of value in which it had a legal property interest. After the Court remanded for reconsideration in light of its opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed petitioner's § 1344(1) convictions. This petition presents the following questions:

1. In Shaw, the Court held that the bank must have a legal interest in the property targeted by a § 1344(1) scheme to defraud; is that interest a mixed question of law and fact for the jury or a pure question of law for the trial court?

2. If the bank's interest in the targeted property is a question for the jury, did the Ninth Circuit erroneously affirm petitioner's § 1344(1) convictions given that the government did not present evidence of such an interest at his trial and the district court did not instruct the jury on that element?

In Shaw, the Court held that the bank must have a legal interest in the property targeted by a §1344(1) scheme to defraud; is that interest a mixed question of law and fact for the jury or a pure question of law for the trial court?