commercial carrier furthered or advanced or carried out in some way the scheme or plan to defraud or to obtain money or property by means of fraudulent representations,” and also that "an interstate commercial carrier is a carrier . .. engaged in transporting persons or property across state lines.” J.A. 556-57. 3 . We pause briefly to address Appellants' suggestion that Congress intended the mail fraud statute, like the wire fraud statute, to be a regulation of the "use of channels of interstate commerce” under the first Lopez category and, therefore, that we should look to the wire fraud statute, which requires proof that a wiring actually crossed state lines, for guidance in interpreting the mail fraud statute. See e.g., United. States v. Darby, 37 F.3d 1059, 1067 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In contrast to the mail fraud statute, the
holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner holding that while the government was required to prove that the defendants phone call crossed a state line  the government did not need to prove that the defendant knew of the interstate nexus holding in the context of the criminal false claims act that to prove falsity the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time the defendant made it holding that the government must prove the defendant knew of the features of the firearm that brought it within the scope of the act holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation