Ashton J. Ryan, Jr. v. United States

Whether the Fifth Circuit followed the authority and mandate of Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U. S. 305 (2023).

Whether the jury was properly instructed on what constitutes “property,” under charging statutes, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1344, 1349, that is, whether the pattern instructions permitted the jury to return verdicts of guilty on the basis of the prohibitive right-to-control theory, rather than traditional property items, notions and interests, and whether the jury did so.

Whether the evidence of bank fraud and conspiracy, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1344, 1349, constituted an intangible right to control assets, as the element of property under these statutes, or constituted traditional property items, notions and interests.

Whether the Fifth Circuit followed the authority and mandate of Thompson v. United States, 504 U. S. 408 (2025).

Whether the jury was properly instructed, under charging statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1005, on what constitutes “false statements,” that is, whether the pattern instructions permitted the jury to return verdicts of guilty on the elements of false statements that were misleading, only, and not false, and whether the jury did so.

Whether the false statements alleged in the Second Superseding Indictment (E.D. La. ECF No. 318), and presented at trial, constituted false statements, or only misleading statements, and found by