Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: When defendant was convicted of two counts of making false statements to federal officials, based on statements made at two different times on same day, statements were not multiplicitous because (1) defendant did not give identical false statements on two different occasions, and (2) one of officials testified how defendant's lying further impaired officials' investigation by requiring officials to independently verify anything defendant told agents. United States v Amirnazmi (2009, ED Pa) 2009 US Dist LEXIS 74833.

105. Estoppel and res judicata

Acquittal of several defendants charged jointly with offense under 18 USCS § 1001 was not res judicata as to indictment of one of defendants for same or similar offense. United States v Kenny (1956, CA3 NJ) 236 F2d 128, cert den (1956) 352 US 894, 1 L Ed 2d 87, 77 S Ct 133.

Fact that government representative is aware of false statements and claims submitted to government does not estop government from alleging falsity of statements and claims where government representative is also involved in crime. United States v Martin (1985, CA8 Minn) 772 F2d 1442.

District Court did not err in refusing to dismiss portion of indictment charging violation of 18 USCS §§ 1001, 1623 on grounds of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel, where defendants had previously been acquitted of willfully and knowingly misapplying moneys entrusted to bank with intent to injure and defraud bank in violation of 18 USCS § 656, and willfully and knowingly making false material statement to bank for purposes of influencing actions of that bank in violation of 18 USCS § 1014, and conspiracy to commit those offenses under 18 USCS § 371, even though conspiracy charge in present indictment was dismissed on double jeopardy grounds, since substantive offenses charged under each indictment involved completely different statutory violations requiring proof of different facts, and involved completely different transactions. United States v Levy (1986, CA5 La) 803 F2d 1390.

Although defendants' prior guilty plea to 9 counts of criminal indictment under 18 USCS §§ 371 and 1001 collaterally estops them from relitigating issues essential to convictions, plea on particular count, does not conclusively establish substantive counts incorporated and particular counts' explanation of effectuation of defendants' conspiracy. Alsco-Harvard Fraud Litigation (1981, DC Dist Col) 523 F Supp 790.

106. Statute of limitations

Where defendant knew and assented to the objectives of the conspiratorial scheme by making false statements to Immigration and Naturalization Service to obtain permanent residence status for alien who had entered into sham marriage with citizen, and the record is devoid of evidence that defendant disassociated himself from the scheme, the trial court properly regarded defendant as a participant throughout the life of the conspiracy notwithstanding his assertion that he was not aware that an additional affidavit would have to be submitted beyond the visa petition, which was filed more than five years, the applicable limitations period, before filing of indictment, and defendant could be convicted on the basis of false statements made by the alien to the Immigration and Naturalization Service within five years of the filing of the indictment. United States v Sarantos (1972, CA2 NY) 455 F2d 877.

Offense under 18 USCS § 1001, of causing submission of false statements to government based on clinical investigators' submission to manufacturer and sponsor of research relating to drugs of reports containing false information resulting in manufacturer submitting false report to Food and Drug Administration was complete when manufacturer mailed report, and action commenced 5 years and 5 days thereafter was barred by 5-year statute of limitations; there is no requirement that government actually receive or rely on statement before offense is completed. United States v Smith (1984, CA9 Cal) 740 F2d 734.

Defendant's oral false statement was made within statute of limitations period, even though he had made identical false statement earlier in writing, since he was not charged with first statement. United States v Roshko (1992, CA2 NY) 969 F2d 1.

Statute of limitations did not begin to run on scheme to conceal under 18 USCS § 1001 until each overt act constituting scheme had occurred, since case could not be brought and proven until that time. United States v Heacock (1994, CA5 Miss) 31 F3d 249.

Indictment of mortgage broker for making false statements within jurisdiction of Department of Housing and Urban Development was not barred by five-year statute of limitations of 18 USCS § 3282, since five years did not start running until crime was complete, which occurred when HUD received final loan application, thereby obtaining jurisdiction over matter. United States v Lutz (1998, CA6 Ohio) 154 F3d 581, 1998 FED App 263P.

Making false statement under 18 USCS § 1001 was not considered continuing offense for statute of limitations purposes because nothing in explicit language of § 1001 compelled conclusion that offense committed thereunder was to be considered continuing one, nor did nature of crime involved indicate that Congress intended that it be continuing offense since none of criminalized acts clearly contemplated prolonged course of conduct; therefore, district court's conclusion that five year statute of limitations had expired on superseding indictment, which charged defendant with violation of 18 USCS § 1001 was not plain error. United States v Dunne (2003, CA10 Utah) 324 F3d 1158.

Mailed document did not contain additional false statements, and waiver page, which was not included in faxed transmission sent day prior, did not explicitly incorporate false statement in earlier pages; therefore, filing indictment one day outside of five-year statute of limitations for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 was not permissible. United States v Grenier (2008, CA6 Ohio) 513 F3d 632, 2008 FED App 37P.

18 USCS § 1001 reveals congressional intent to penalize, among other acts, pattern of conduct and not necessarily to penalize only independent acts which manifest pattern; thus Congressman, who in 1949 falsely certified that certain woman was eligible for salary as his clerk, could not claim, when he was indicted for receiving her checks in 1953, the three-year statute of limitations under 18 USCS § 3282 since overt acts continued into 1953. Bramblett v United States (1956, App DC) 97 US App DC 330, 231 F2d 489, cert den (1956) 350 US 1015, 100 L Ed 874, 76 S Ct 658.

Although loan application which contained initial false statements was submitted more than 5 years before filing of indictment, where conspiracy count alleges some overt act in furtherance of objectives of conspiracy which occurred after filing of indictment statute of limitation did not bar prosecution; statute of limitations begins to run, in criminal conspiracy charges, from date of last over act. United States v Culoso (1978, SD NY) 461 F Supp 128, affd without op (1979, CA2 NY) 607 F2d 999.

Defendant's indictment returned on April 15, 2005, alleged that she applied for home loan on April 14, 1998, February 22, 1999, and April 5, 1999, and that she applied for Department of Agriculture payment subsidies on April 5, 1999; according to indictment, in making each application, defendant concealed fact that her boyfriend at time resided with her and earned substantial wages. Government admitted that case could have been brought and proved when defendant made each individual application for benefits and thus each alleged application was completed offense, not merely act in prolonged crime; therefore, pursuant to five-year statute of limitations in 18 USCS § 3282, portion of indictment containing allegations concerning conduct that occurred before April 14, 2000, was untimely. United States v Gremillion-Stovall (2005, MD La) 397 F Supp 2d 798.

Crime of concealment described in 18 USCS § 1001(a)(1) is not continuing offense for statute of limitations purposes; that crime is "committed," within meaning of 18 USCS § 3282(a), when defendant commits affirmative act of concealment in furtherance of scheme, and each new affirmative act of concealment is new criminal act, triggering new limitations period. United States v Mubayyid (2008, DC Mass) 2008-2 USTC P 50504, 102 AFTR 2d 5348.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Where defendant allegedly engaged in scheme to conceal presence of asbestos at oil refinery, five-year statute of limitations did not bar indictment because alleged scheme continued into five years preceding filing of indictment. United States v Shaw (2005, CA10 Kan) 150 Fed Appx 863, 61 Envt Rep Cas 1363.

107. Comments of prosecutor

Prosecutor's comments referring to "smuggling" of whiskey into foreign country was no so egregious as to require new trial for willfully submitting false statement to government agency by falsely designating liquor onboard ship, especially since court gave curative instruction. United States v Lichenstein (1980, CA5 Ga) 610 F2d 1272, cert den (1980) 447 US 907, 64 L Ed 2d 856, 100 S Ct 2991.

Defendant's conviction of 36 violations of 18 USCS § 1001 conclusively established his civil liability to government under former 31 USCS §§ 231-235; imposition of civil sanctions on defendant convicted of criminal violation of § 1001 did not place defendant in double jeopardy and did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. Berdick v United States (1979) 222 Ct Cl 94, 612 F2d 533.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Defendant's judgment and conviction for violating 18 USCS § 1001, which arose from his illicit use of constable's badge to gain access to secured area of Pittsburgh International Airport reserved for ticketed passengers only, was affirmed because evidence against defendant, including his own admissions, was more than sufficient to support jury verdict; since there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction, appellate court rejected his argument that he was unduly prejudiced by closing arguments of his co-defendant's counsel. United States v Kobold (2004, CA3 Pa) 118 Fed Appx 638, cert den (2005) 544 US 978, 125 S Ct 1868, 161 L Ed 2d 729.

Unpublished: Defendant's convictions for violating 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) were affirmed because he was properly convicted of violating 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2); district judge instructed jury on all elements of § 1001(a)(2) violation, and fact that government erroneously referred to license or pilot's license at trial had no effect on outcome of trial because government never indicated pilot's license and medical certificate were same document, and testimony provided that airman medical certificate was not pilot's license; therefore, any error prosecutor made did not warrant new trial. United States v Milo (2008, CA11 Fla) 2008 US App LEXIS 5054.

108. Verdict

Jury verdict acquitting defendant of charge of submission of false statement in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 is not inconsistent with verdict finding defendant guilty of charge of willful under reporting of taxable income in violation of 26 USCS § 7206. United States v Claiborne (1985, CA9 Nev) 765 F2d 784, 85-2 USTC P 9821, 18 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1131, 56 AFTR 2d 6264, cert den (1986) 475 US 1120, 90 L Ed 2d 182, 106 S Ct 1636.

Conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 can rest on evidence that defendant knowingly and willfully caused false statement to be made to government agency, and defendant need not have prepared statement himself. United States v Alemany Rivera (1985, CA1 Puerto Rico) 781 F2d 229, cert den (1986) 475 US 1086, 89 L Ed 2d 725, 106 S Ct 1469.

Inconsistent jury verdicts acquitting defendant of submitting backdated report to EPA, in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, while convicting him of mail fraud based upon receipt of payment in connection with same EPA case, did not require reversal, since jury could have decided that he was not aware of backdating earlier but knew by time he received payment. United States v Gaind (1994, CA2 NY) 31 F3d 73 (criticized in State v Singh (2002) 259 Conn 693, 793 A2d 226).

Political asylum applicant is entitled to new trial on charge of making material misstatements in asylum application under 18 USCS § 1001, where jury rendered general verdict and only 1 of 2 misstatements was material, because it is impossible to determine whether verdict rested in whole or part on immaterial misstatements. United States v Naserkhaki (1989, ED Va) 722 F Supp 242.

By excepting words "knowingly and willfully" from its findings as to specification based upon violation of 18 USCS § 1001, which denounces crime of making false statement or representation of material fact when done knowingly and willfully, court-martial found accused not guilty of essential elements of offense charged. United States v Wright (1963) 34 CMR 518.

109. Appeal and review

Convictions of submitting, and conspiring to submit, false documents overturned due to prejudicial denial of defendant's motion for severance, the bases for said motion being that testimony of co-defendant vital for the defense was withheld because of co-defendant's decision not to take the stand, where the nature of his anticipated testimony was made known to the presiding judge, as was his offer to testify upon severance. United States v Shuford (1971, CA4 SC) 454 F2d 772 (criticized in People v Lawley (2002) 27 Cal 4th 102, 115 Cal Rptr 2d 614, 38 P3d 461, 2002 CDOS 658, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 849).

Since no objection was made to trial court's failure to instruct jury as to meaning of term "jurisdiction" in 18 USCS § 1001, appellant was foreclosed from raising issue for first time on appeal. United States v Kraude (1972, CA9 Cal) 467 F2d 37, cert den (1972) 409 US 1076, 34 L Ed 2d 664, 93 S Ct 684.

Whether criminal defendant who gives false name to magistrate can be indicted and prosecuted under 18 USCS § 1001 is question of law subject to de novo review on appeal. United States v Plascencia-Orozco (1985, CA9 Cal) 768 F2d 1074.

Failure to take count away from jury on basis of "exculpatory no" doctrine, which resulted in finding of guilt and sentence, was not reversible error, where there existed only small window of opportunity for application of "exculpatory no" exception, and this was only issue preserved on appeal. Moser v United States (1994, CA7 Wis) 18 F3d 469 (criticized in United States v Solis (1997, CAAF) 46 MJ 31, 1997 CAAF LEXIS 5).

Totality of circumstances required vacating private developer's convictions on two counts of violating 18 USCS § 1001 by submitting false information to FmHA, where prosecutor's depiction of him had decidedly pejorative connotation, prosecutor encouraged jury to consider irrelevant and inadmissible evidence, and jury could have had reasonable doubt as to his intent to deceive FmHA. United States v Rooney (1994, CA2 NY) 37 F3d 847.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Defendant's appeal of his 18 USCS § 666 bribery conviction was denied, but he was entitled to be resentenced due to district court's plain Booker error as (1) government presented sufficient evidence to support conviction; (2) defendant's U.S. Const. amend. VI Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by admission of third party's out-of-court statements, and admission of such statements did not violate federal evidentiary rules, because statements were not admitted for their truth; and (3) court presumed prejudice arising out of district court's Booker error because record did not indicate whether or not defendant would have received lesser sentence under advisory federal guidelines scheme. United States v Guishard (2006, CA3 VI) 2006 US App LEXIS 643.

Unpublished: Defendant's motion for new trial as to Count Two was based upon his sister's affidavit that she was present at his birth in Nogales, Arizona; district court reasonably found that defendant was not diligent in seeking such evidence from his family members during year after he was indicted and before his trial began; furthermore, district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that new evidence was unlikely to result in judgment of acquittal, in light of Government's evidence that defendant was born in Mexico. United States v Salazar (2009, CA4 SC) 2009 US App LEXIS 14835.

Unpublished: Defendant's motion for new trial as to Count Four was based upon sworn statement by human resource specialist who prepared defendant's application for early retirement based upon January 30, 1954, date of birth that was listed in his personnel records, in which she indicated that she was aware in April 2004 of discrepancies concerning defendant's date of birth, contrary to her testimony at trial; district court found that evidence was not newly discovered because it was provided to defendant, in substance, before trial and he attempted to impeach specialist's testimony with it when she testified; furthermore, evidence was merely impeaching and was not sufficient to establish affirmative defense of entrapment by estoppel because it established at most only that specialist, not other government employees who proposed defendant's early retirement, was aware of discrepancies between defendant's reported dates of birth. United States v Salazar (2009, CA4 SC) 2009 US App LEXIS 14835.

Unpublished: Jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence; defendant did not contest that he claimed to have been born in Nogales, Arizona, on questionnaire he submitted for purpose of maintaining his security clearance and evidence that defendant's statement on questionnaire was knowingly false was persuasive; defendant challenged reliability of government's evidence and credibility of its witnesses at trial, but did not present any affirmative evidence that he was born in Arizona, rather than Mexico; assuming that jury credited testimony of government's witnesses, and viewing evidence in light most favorable to government, evidence was sufficient for reasonable jury to find defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. United States v Salazar (2009, CA4 SC) 2009 US App LEXIS 14835.

110. Search and seizure

18 USCS § 844(h)(2)--which prohibited carrying explosive "during" commission of any felony which might be prosecuted in court of U.S.--did not include requirement that explosive had to be carried "in relation to" underlying felony; thus, where respondent gave false information on customs form while attempting to enter U.S. (in violation of 18 USCS § 1001), and search of his car revealed explosives that he intended to detonate in this country, because his carrying of explosives was contemporaneous with his 18 USCS § 1001 violation, he carried them "during" that violation. United States v Ressam (2008, US) 128 S Ct 1858, 170 L Ed 2d 640, 21 FLW Fed S 248.

In prosecution for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 government must return property seized since search warrant issued in investigation of home-study school for possible fraudulent practices in connection with federal insured student loan program did not satisfy particularity requirement where it was framed to allow seizure of almost all papers and was limited only by qualification that seized item be evidence of violations of cited statutes which penalized very wide range of frauds and conspiracies; at minimum, precise nature of fraud or conspiracy offense for which warrant was authorized should have been stated in affidavit; even though warrant may have satisfied particularity requirements as regards student rosters, student files, file jackets, and contents as well as lessening grading cards, it covered documents antedating school's participation in program, and affidavit did not indicate any connection between earlier document and alleged criminal behavior; warrant authorizing seizure of HEW documents and forms was too general since Office of Education operates many programs in addition to student loan program and affidavit did not establish probable cause for seizure of non-federal student loan documents and forms. In re Application of Lafayette Academy, Inc. (1979, CA1 RI) 610 F2d 1.

District court properly denied defendant's pretrial suppression motion, which challenged warrant-based search of his home, which search resulted in defendant pleading guilty to sexual exploitation of minor, possession and receipt of materials involving sexual exploitation of minor, and making false statement offenses under 18 USCS § 2251(a), (e), 2252(a)(2), (a)(4)(B), (b)(1), (b)(2), 1001(a)(2) since (1) issuing judge's finding, that information provided to Federal Bureau of Investigation by Spanish law enforcement computer crimes unit and its technique of tracking images using "hash values" were reliable, was not clearly erroneous; (2) defendant did not contend that information provided by computer crimes unit was stale, and warrant affidavit contained information that allowed issuing judge to make staleness determination; (3) warrant was not invalid per se merely because it did not specify search strategy; (4) warrant met U.S. Const. amend. IV particularity requirements as it described and identified items to be seized from his home computer; and (5) defendant was not in custody and voluntarily made incriminating statements during search. United States v Cartier (2008, CA8 ND) 543 F3d 442.

Airline traveler convicted under 18 USCS § 1001 for lying to Customs agent is not entitled to new trial on grounds that Customs agent selected him for questioning solely because traveler was black, where agent approached traveler who was waiting to board airplane and after questioning and pat down search located undeclared money in secret pouch, because traveler's behavior fit profile of typical currency violators and agent's pat down search was based upon reasonable suspicion and not on racial prejudice. United States v Obiuwevbi (1991, ND Ill) 788 F Supp 351, affd (1992, CA7 Ill) 962 F2d 1236, 35 Fed Rules Evid Serv 773.

111. Miscellaneous

Defendants' convictions for environmental violations were reversed due to trial judge's ex parte meeting with jury foreperson; judge's comments may have impressed on jury obligation to return verdict, and judge's instruction on definition of overt act created risk that foreperson would provide innocent misstatements of law to jury. United States v Peters (2003, CA5 Tex) 349 F3d 842, 57 Envt Rep Cas 1353, 62 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1261.

Case was remanded to determine whether defendant could establish fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea to 18 USCS § 1001 pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 because there was no indication that district court had applied proper standard, i.e., that defendant need only show proper advice could have at least plausibly motivated him not to have pled guilty. United States v McTiernan (2008, CA9 Cal) 546 F3d 1160.

In ruling on vessel owner's motion to dismiss prosecution under 18 USCS § 1001 for separate offense that occurred when cruise ship, following its alleged improper discharge of oil outside territorial waters of U.S., falsely represented to Coast Guard that no such discharge had occurred, District Court would not consider implications of its decision on international balance of powers, as representing nonjusticiable political issue properly reserved to executive branch. United States v Royal Caribbean Cruises (1998, SD Fla) 11 F Supp 2d 1358, 1998 AMC 1817.

Where defendant allegedly made unauthorized disclosures of classified information about ambassador's wife's affiliation with Central Intelligence Agency to journalists and allegedly made false statements to federal agents and grand jury, defendant's motion to compel discovery was granted as to, inter alia, documentation of discussions defendant had with government officials or reports regarding ambassador or wife, but motion was denied as to documents concerning ambassador and wife. United States v Libby (2006, DC Dist Col) 432 F Supp 2d 81.

In case in which defendant moved for new trial or for acquittal, arguing that addition of Count Five, which alleged violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) in superceding indictment was vindictive prosecution following reversal of several of his convictions and remand by appellate court, government successfully rebutted presumption of vindictiveness created by defendant because government changed its trial strategy, and government had justified its change of trial strategy, that was, adding Count Five to superseding indictment, by setting forth neutral, rational reasons related to evidentiary and other procedural problems that became apparent only after first trial and decision of court of appeals. United States v Safavian (2009, DC Dist Col) 644 F Supp 2d 1.

In case in which defendant moved for new trial or for acquittal, arguing that addition of Count Three, which alleged violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) in superceding indictment was vindictive prosecution following reversal of several of his convictions and remand by appellate court, government successfully rebutted presumption of vindictiveness created by defendant; government argued that one witness's testimony and at least some of evidence was not available to government prior to first trial because process under Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between United States and United Kingdom had not been completed. United States v Safavian (2009, DC Dist Col) 644 F Supp 2d 1.