§ 1957, and was dismissed shortly before trial. 6 . The parties further stipulated that the individuals named in counts one through eight and ten through thirteen were policyholders with Sovereign Insurance, and that claims submitted by those policyholders to Sovereign Insurance remained unpaid. 7 . See United. States v. Green, 494 F.2d 820, 824 (5th Cir.) (“One 'causes’ the mails to be used when one does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinaty course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended....") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1004, 95 S.Ct. 325, 42 L.Ed.2d 280 (1974). 8 .See Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8, 74 S.Ct. 358, 363, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Nielsen had also insisted that an
holding the connection is an element holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim holding that the mailing element is satisfied by a mailing which is incident to an essential part of the scheme holding that damage to the property of another is an essential element of the offense of criminal mischief holding dollar amount is not an essential element