Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Where defendant, upon boarding flight to Europe with his wife, falsely stated to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents that his wife was carrying $ 6,500 and he had only $ 356, when in fact he was carrying additional $ 7,900, false statements were material, required element to support conviction for violating 18 USCS § 1001, because they were capable of influencing DHS agents' investigation. United States v Odunze (2008, CA6 Tenn) 2008 FED App 278N.

Unpublished: Where jury convicted defendant of making false statements in matter within jurisdiction of Veterans Administration (VA), defendant's employer, when he denied owning or having owned off-duty weapon after being asked directly by investigator for VA, there was sufficient evidence showing that defendant's false statement was material to investigator's inquiry because false statement went to heart of whether defendant had means of engaging in unprofessional conduct. United States v Carrasquillo (2007, CA2 NY) 2007 US App LEXIS 15471.

Unpublished: Defendant's conviction for making materially false statement, violation of 18 USCS § 1001, was affirmed because her statement to FBI Agent that she did not know man to whom she purportedly mailed classified documents when she, in fact, had long-standing acquaintance with him, was material as government's attempts to locate documents would have taken different course had government been aware of relationship. United States v Cummings (2007, CA9 Wash) 2007 US App LEXIS 19593.

Unpublished: In case in which defendants were convicted of violating 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2), they argued unsuccessfully that evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. Contrary to their assertion, their claims of ownership of real estate were material since those claims were capable of influencing decision of Small Business Administration to make loan. United States v Miller (2008, CA5 Tex) 2008 US App LEXIS 25317.

165.--Customs matters

Defendant's concealment of diamond and emerald ring, 7 unset diamonds and diamond ring on person of his traveling companion showed awareness that customs officials would be interested in gems and allowed jury reasonably to infer that defendant had notice Customs would consider passage of valuable gems into United States "material"; customs declaration form which clearly stated "all your baggage, including hand bags and hand-carried parcels, may be examined" was sufficient to establish that defendant, international traveler, had notice that his possession of gems was material to Customs, even though gems were acquired in United States. United States v Masters (1979, CA9 Cal) 612 F2d 1117, cert den (1980) 449 US 847, 66 L Ed 2d 57, 101 S Ct 134.

Affirmative, unsolicited statements offered by defendants to Customs officers to effect that they had not been in Mexico but had flown from New Mexico are material since if believed such statements would have enabled defendants and any contraband they might have been carrying to enter country without rigorous examination thus potentially impairing function of Customs Service and violating 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Moore (1980, CA9 Cal) 638 F2d 1171, cert den (1981) 449 US 1113, 66 L Ed 2d 842, 101 S Ct 924.

Jury could have reasonably decided that understatement of value on shipper's export declaration form based on values he supplied to freight forwarders was material misrepresentation under 18 USCS § 1001, where government presented evidence that values submitted in such forms are used by customs officials in determining which outbound cargo to inspect and for statistical purposes which affect trade negotiations with other countries. United States v Chmielewski (2000, CA8 Minn) 218 F3d 840, 55 Fed Rules Evid Serv 702, 86 AFTR 2d 5252, post-conviction relief den, motion den (2001, DC Minn) 2001 US Dist LEXIS 19562.

166.--Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Defendant's conviction under indictment charging him with knowingly and willfully making false statement to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, was reversed where, although there was evidence that defendant had failed to list in FDIC questionnaire form, loan to which he was accommodated, the only evidence of materiality of his statement was the general statement by bank examiner that the FDIC relied upon the questionnaire, without stating what for or for what purpose. United States v Beer (1975, CA5 Fla) 518 F2d 168.

Evidence of materiality was insufficient, where lie on HUD forms about amount of "broker's" commission earned for sale of condominiums by bank directors engaged in self-dealing was not material to work of FDIC, since there was no testimony that amount of commission was relevant to case or had potential to influence agency's conduct, although lie about existence of commission might have been material. United States v Kwiat (1987, CA7 Ill) 817 F2d 440, cert den (1987) 484 US 924, 98 L Ed 2d 245, 108 S Ct 284.

Evidence that defendant provided bank with false name and social security number was insufficient to convict under 18 USCS § 1001, where there was no evidence that false statements had natural tendency to influence or were capable of influencing FDIC. United States v Ismail (1996, CA4 Va) 97 F3d 50, 96-2 USTC P 50510, 79 AFTR 2d 901.

167.--Payments or disbursements

Government proof of mere statement of claim for payment for drug, not extending to any additional statements capable of inducing payment, did not establish materiality of statements for purposes of 18 USCS § 1001. United States v Radetsky (1976, CA10 Colo) 535 F2d 556, cert den (1976) 429 US 820, 50 L Ed 2d 81, 97 S Ct 68 and (ovrld in part on other grounds by United States v Daily (1990, CA10 Kan) 921 F2d 994).

Evidence was sufficient to establish that false statements made by defendant superintendent of Indian agency in documents submitted to BIA were "material" within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001 since BIA made disbursements based on documents. United States v Hicks (1980, CA8 SD) 619 F2d 752 (criticized in United States v McGuire (1996, CA5 Miss) 96-1 USTC P 50163).

False statements on time cards and time sheets are material where information on them initiated other records which, in turn, had ultimate effect of paying trainees for performing unauthorized work while preventing State Agency and Department of Labor from accurately monitoring federal funds. United States v Brown (1982, CA7 Wis) 688 F2d 1112, 11 Fed Rules Evid Serv 708.

False representations made in letters to Department of Housing and Urban Development seeking authorization for release of mortgage escrow monies were material within meaning of 18 USCS § 1001, even though they did not induce disbursement of any monies, since false representations were clearly capable of resulting in fraudulent procurement of government funds and HUD plainly could have relied on them to its detriment. 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.

168. Miscellaneous

It may be that under certain circumstances, prosecution of false statements may be sustained despite lack of proof as to exact words used, but where sole charge relating to statement is alleged false statement violation, words become crucial, and where there was no basis other than pure speculation upon which reasonable juror could determine what question was asked and what response was given, finding that false statement was made is unreasonable. United States v Clifford (1976, ED NY) 426 F Supp 696.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: In case in which defendants were convicted of violating 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2), they argued unsuccessfully that evidence was insufficient to support their convictions; they asserted that their claims of ownership of piece of real estate were not statements under § 1001(a)(2) because they were expressions of legal opinions or conclusions; however, since their claims of ownership were factual assertions that could be proven true or false, they were statements. United States v Miller (2008, CA5 Tex) 2008 US App LEXIS 25317.

169.--Cases where evidence found sufficient

Evidence that defendant, in application for certificate of identification required of all alien enemies by presidential proclamation, answered "none" to question as to clubs and societies of which he had been member in preceding five years, whereas it was proved that he was member of local branch of Nazi party, was sufficient to sustain conviction. United States v Heine (1945, CA2 NY) 149 F2d 485, cert den (1945) 325 US 885, 89 L Ed 2000, 65 S Ct 1578; United States v Barra (1945, CA2 NY) 149 F2d 489; United States v Schefold (1945, CA2 NY) 149 F2d 492, cert den (1945) 326 US 725, 90 L Ed 430, 66 S Ct 30.

Government proved defendant pharmacist purchased 600 morphine tablets, had only 150 on hand, and had legally sold only 120; this was sufficient to show crime had been committed. Coil v United States (1965, CA8 Neb) 343 F2d 573, cert den (1965) 382 US 821, 15 L Ed 2d 67, 86 S Ct 48.

Defendant's conviction under indictment based on 18 USCS § 1001 charging him with aiding and abetting a woman in filing a petition to classify status of alien relative for issuance of immigrant status, concealing from the INS the fact that the woman had gone through a marriage ceremony with an alien solely for the purpose of obtaining status for the alien as a permanent resident with the understanding that she and alien would not live together as man and wife, was affirmed, where although defendant was not present when woman filled in petition form, and there is no direct proof that he was aware of specific information called for, nevertheless it was easily foreseeable that she would affirmatively inform INS of marriage and conceal its limited nature, and such representation and concealment were essential to success of plan. United States v Lozano (1975, CA7 Ill) 511 F2d 1, cert den (1975) 423 US 850, 46 L Ed 2d 74, 96 S Ct 94.

Sufficient evidence existed to support defendant's conviction for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 by making false statement on form requesting payment from Farmers Home Administration for building of house where government official testified that he thoroughly explained forms to defendant, that he supervised defendant's signing of form which stated that all subcontractors' bills had been paid, that he knew of no other bills that had not been paid and that he would not have authorized issuance of check if he had known about them. United States v Trull (1978, CA5 Miss) 581 F2d 551.

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 by willfully and knowingly misrepresenting signatures on stipend rosters maintained by university as part of government funded program although he knew such signatures were false and fraudulent; each of 9 students testified that their name had been forged on rosters and that they had not received stipend payments for those dates, testimony of expert witness unquestionably proved that defendant had forged signatures of those students and, in addition, defendant admitted doing so. United States v Hooper (1979, CA7 Wis) 596 F2d 219, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1306.

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 where evidence proved that defendant operated business which sold commodity options to public utilizing services of several brokerage houses, that Securities and Exchange Commission began to investigate defendant and his investment company, defendant submitted documents to agency as part of investigation which contained altered figures and figures made company appear more solvent than it actually was. United States v Di Fonzo (1979, CA7 Ill) 603 F2d 1260, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 96957, cert den (1980) 444 US 1018, 62 L Ed 2d 648, 100 S Ct 672.

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of violation of 18 USCS § 1001, despite her contention that she was mere bystander at sale of counterfeit immigration documents to undercover agent, since she was present at each of sales, placed fake phone call in presence of undercover agent supposedly to obtain additional documents for other member of agent's family, and when she was arrested, possessed marked money which agent had given codefendant husband in initial purchase of fake documents. United States v Cervantes (1979, CA10 Colo) 609 F2d 974, cert den (1980) 444 US 1023, 62 L Ed 2d 656, 100 S Ct 684.

In prosecution for violation of 18 USCS §§ 371, 665(a) and 1001, evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where it was proved that defendant was job developer for state department of employment security, codefendant was co-owner of home decorators company in state, 3 individuals were employed at codefendant's business and were placed on CETA rolls, defendant falsified documents relating to employment of persons and conspired with codefendants to effect such falsification and then to cover it up. United States v Pappas (1979, CA1 Mass) 611 F2d 399, 5 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1329.

Evidence that defendant charged with violation of 18 USCS § 1001, knowing that government claims representatives were seeking information to determine defendant's eligibility for benefits, gave false response to question whether he was receiving other benefits or any other income was sufficient to support conviction. United States v King (1980, CA7 Ill) 613 F2d 670, 5 Fed Rules Evid Serv 720, 56 ALR Fed 159 (criticized in United States v LeMaster (1995, CA6 Ky) 54 F3d 1224, 42 Fed Rules Evid Serv 494, 1995 FED App 157P) and (criticized in United States v Wiener (1996, CA2 NY) 96 F3d 35).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 where testimony established that defendant union president and his wife who was union office manager filed union's financial reports showing as strike expenses moneys which had actually gone for personal use and benefit of defendants. United States v Sullivan (1980, CA8 Mo) 618 F2d 1290, 89 CCH LC P 12105, 5 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1230.

In prosecution for violation of 18 USCS § 1001, evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant physician's conviction where documentary testimonial evidence indicated that Medicaid and Medicare claim forms had been submitted which billed certain Friday office visits by patients although he did not have office hours or normally see patients on Fridays. United States v Adler (1980, CA8 Mo) 623 F2d 1287.

In prosecution for misrepresentation in connection with county supervisor's alleged personal use of county resources received in part from federal government as antirecession funds, government is not required to show specific weeks in which federal funds were used or prove actual concealment, but evidence is sufficient to support conviction of misrepresentation where record shows that county employees, who worked on defendant's personal farm, were paid by county using federal funds during general periods charged. United States v Robinson (1983, CA5 Miss) 700 F2d 205, 12 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1295, cert den (1984) 465 US 1008, 79 L Ed 2d 235, 104 S Ct 1003.

Evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 that appellant made or caused to be made statements and invoices for billings of services of engineer and engineer in training which were false where although engineer testified that he worked only few of 150 reported hours on project, whereas appellant billed for 307 hours of service and appellant instructed him to alter his time sheets to be in accordance with invoices. United States v Jackson (1983, CA8 Mo) 714 F2d 809, 13 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1915.

Government's conclusive establishment of chain of custody of blood samples taken from cattle sufficiently proved source of samples and sufficiently proved that laboratories received samples that were supposed to be sent to them. United States v Mendel (1984, CA2 NY) 746 F2d 155, 16 Fed Rules Evid Serv 771, cert den (1985) 469 US 1213, 84 L Ed 2d 331, 105 S Ct 1184.

Evidence was sufficient to support conviction under 18 USCS § 1001 where it proved that defendant did not merely give government check knowing there were not funds sufficient to cover amount in account, but also joined other defendants in scheme pursuant to which bank accounts were opened in names of companies that existed only for purpose of issuing checks, vehicles were purchased with checks drawn on these company accounts, and defendants not only knew that accounts had insufficient funds but had intent not to honor checks. United States v Ford (1986, CA5 Tex) 797 F2d 1329, cert den (1987) 479 US 1070, 93 L Ed 2d 1011, 107 S Ct 964 and reinstated, in part (1987, CA5 Tex) 824 F2d 1430, cert den (1988) 484 US 1034, 98 L Ed 2d 776, 108 S Ct 741.

Evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant made misrepresentations to his employer to effect that he was working full time when in fact he was attending Harvard, where he turned in time sheets implying that he was working full time when he was in class attendance and leased apartment in which he lived as student, calling it "office," although business only required him to be in Boston on few occasions. United States v Burns (1997, CA2 Vt) 104 F3d 529.

Evidence that farmer made false statements to crop insurance agent so he could recover insurance money to which he was not entitled was sufficient to convict under 18 USCS § 1001. United States v McClatchy (2001, CA5 Miss) 249 F3d 348, reh den (2001, CA5 Miss) 2001 US App LEXIS 13266 and cert den (2001) 534 US 896, 151 L Ed 2d 155, 122 S Ct 217.

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of making false statements in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 in connection with loans he obtained from Small Business Administration (SBA), where he failed to disclose that he, not his wife, was actual thirty percent owner and manager of business, that he had previously been convicted of crime, and that he intended to borrow more than he needed from SBA and utilize surplus to pay off partnership's outstanding obligation and use personally. United States v Kosth (2001, CA7 Ill) 257 F3d 712, 57 Fed Rules Evid Serv 423, mod, reh, en banc, den (2001, CA7 Ill) 2001 US App LEXIS 28331.

Where defendant was indicted for offenses related to fraudulent investment scheme and indictment alleged that defendant told FBI agent that another person had absconded with all money invested by victims, evidence was sufficient to support finding that defendant made false material statement to agent; agent testified at trial that defendant told agent that defendant had to pursue person through foreign courts to get remedy, that defendant used money for personal expenses, that defendant credited victims with other monies under defendant's control, and that other monies were in account in Switzerland, although defendant later admitted that there was no such account. United States v Liner (2006, CA8 Minn) 435 F3d 920.

Defendants' convictions for making false statements about consulting agreements to FBI under 18 USCS § 1001 were supported by sufficient evidence, including handwriting exemplars, consulting agreements signed by and authorizing payment to defendants, committee member and elected secretary for tribal district, returned checks tracking payments, minutes showing that district's planning commission refused to authorize agreements, and FBI agent's testimony that defendants denied having seen agreement and claimed not to recall being paid pursuant to one. United States v Brave Thunder (2006, CA8 ND) 445 F3d 1062.

In action in which defendant appealed from judgment of district court convicting him of participating in price-fixing conspiracy, 15 USCS § 1, and making false statements to federal law enforcement agent who was investigating that conspiracy, 18 USCS § 1001(a)(1), judgment was affirmed where (1) record did not support defendant's contention that he attempted to correct his false statements; and (2) because defendant's statements concealed his actual role in conspiracy, they could have hindered FBI's investigation. United States v Beaver (2008, CA7 Ind) 515 F3d 730, 2008-1 CCH Trade Cases P 76037.

Defendants' convictions for false statements, under 18 USCS § 1001, were supported even to extent that only one of two alleged false statements had been proved because, as matter of law, one false statement was enough for conviction on violation of 18 USCS § 1001; jury could be relied on to accept supported possibility and discard unsupported one. United States v Caputo (2008, CA7 Ill) 517 F3d 935, decision reached on appeal by (2008, CA7 Ill) 2008 US App LEXIS 7970.

Fax headers on copies of falsified reports showed that defendant faxed blank air-monitoring report forms to his codefendant in Florida day after agency sent noncompliance notice to defendant's attention and that codefendant faxed completed reports back to defendant approximately seventeen minutes later; witness testified that falsified air-monitoring reports were delivered to agency later that same day; rational juror could infer from this evidence that defendant transmitted, or arranged for transmission of, falsified records to agency. United States v Starnes (2009, CA3 VI) 583 F3d 196.

Evidence establishing that defendant, felon, purchased handguns from codefendant, federally licensed gun dealer, and on each occasion false information was listed in federal forms required to be completed incident to sale, and it was agreed that prior to dates of alleged transactions handguns in question had been shipped in interstate commerce, and that defendant had been convicted of burglary, crime punishable by imprisonment for exceeding 1 year, defendant in making first purchase used his girlfriend's driver's license as identification, and in making second purchase used name and address of his cousin, was sufficient to support conviction of defendant for violation of 18 USCS § 371, 922(h)(1), and 1001. United States v Panetta (1977, ED Pa) 436 F Supp 114, 2 Fed Rules Evid Serv 337, affd without op (1978, CA3 Pa) 568 F2d 771.

Defendant convicted of deprivation of civil rights under color of law causing bodily injury under 18 USCS § 242, concealment of material fact under 18 USCS § 1001(a), and witness tampering under 18 USCS § 1512(b)(1) was not entitled to posttrial acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 where numerous eyewitnesses testified to use of force against bound detainee in sally port of superior court by defendant, U.S. marshal, and there was sufficient evidence, including testimony, documents, and tape recordings, to support false statements and witness tampering counts. United States v Cook (2007, DC Dist Col) 526 F Supp 2d 10.

Defendant's renewed motion for judgment of acquittal on his conviction for violation of 18 USCS § 1001 was denied because reasonable jury could find that number of defendant's statements were false when they were flatly contradicted by other witnesses, including FBI special agent. United States v Kozeny (2009, SD NY) 664 F Supp 2d 369.

Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished: Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied where evidence presented by government was more than sufficient to support his convictions on wire fraud, bank fraud, and false statement charges arising out of check-kiting scheme; evidence showed that (1) defendant was financial consultant for his co-defendant's investment accounts; (2) he opened up bank account to hide his co-defendant's financial activities; (3) he improperly authorized payment of checks to and from co-defendant's accounts; and (4) he gave false and misleading information to bank representatives in response to their inquiries concerning his co-defendant's accounts. United States v Gordon (2004, CA9 Cal) 117 Fed Appx 501.

Unpublished: Where evidence at trial showed that: (1) defendant had repeatedly informed several contractors for whom he had performed construction services that he was nonresident alien, thus prompting many of them not to file required Form 1099 with Internal Revenue Service; (2) defendant had been born in Minnesota; (3) defendant had lived in Nebraska during years at issue; and (4) defendant had no citizenship other than U.S.; thus, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions for violating 18 USCS § 1001(a)(3). United States v McNeally (2005, CA8 Neb) 132 Fed Appx 63, 2005-1 USTC 50429, 95 AFTR 2d 1400.

Unpublished: Where defendant, deputy sheriff, called friend whose property was going to be searched and also told chief deputy that he knew whereabouts of friend, but defendant told Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents that he had no contact with friend and did not know friend's location, sufficient evidence supported his conviction for giving false statement to FBI. United States v Waddell (2005, CA6 Tenn) 135 Fed Appx 808.

Unpublished: There was sufficient evidence to support convictions under 8 USCS § 1326(a), (b), 18 USCS §§ 911, and 1001 where defendant, whose fingerprints matched those of Mexican citizen who had previously been deported, purchased forged and counterfeit birth certificate that used another name. United States v Hernandez-Rodarte (2005, CA5 Tex) 141 Fed Appx 251.

Unpublished: Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal properly was denied and defendant properly was convicted of making false statement to FBI under 18 USCS § 1001 because defendant averred in his letter to FBI and statements to FBI agents that explosions would take place in Athens, Georgia and that agents could find explosives in Jackson County, Georgia, and statements necessarily concerned location of explosives in Athens because otherwise no explosions could take place; defendant fabricated very existence of those explosives, so he knew that his statements concerning bombings in Athens were false; thus, reasonable jury could have concluded that defendant lied about location of explosives in Athens and that government had met its burden with respect to all five elements of § 1001 charge. United States v Weathers (2006, CA11 Ga) 161 Fed Appx 854.

Unpublished: Defendant's conviction under False Claims Act, 18 USCS § 287, and False Statements Act, was affirmed because district court's denial of cross examination of budget analyst with regard to EEOC investigation of her was proper because analyst had no discretion as to defendant's prosecution and evidence was sufficient for jury to determine that defendant had requisite mental state. United States v Bracy (2007, CA6 Ohio) 2007 FED App 523N.

Unpublished: Defendant's argument that there was insufficient evidence that she willfully made false statement was without merit in view of testimony of government agents, defendant's I-9 Form, and additional I-9 Forms presented to jury in light most favorable to prosecution; any rational trier of fact could have found that defendant knowingly, willfully, and falsely represented in both her I-9 Form and in her oral statements to agents that her I-9 Form was completed on certain date when she had back-dated form; moreover, back-dating form was material misrepresentation because it had tendency to influence immigration officials in their investigation, and fact that defendant acted as both employer and employee did not nullify her duty to truthfully represent her work status; thus evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for one count of one count of making or using false writing or document, violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(3), and one count of willfully making materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement to Government, violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2). United States v Magoti (2009, CA6 Mich) 2009 FED App 743N.

Unpublished: Defendant's conviction for willfully assisting filing of false tax return in violation of 26 USCS § 7206(2) and for making false statements to federal agency in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 was affirmed because tax returns were admitted not for truth of their contents but to establish existence of improperly claimed deduction, there was no Confrontation Clause violation because defendant had opportunity to confront witness who testified against him and jury instructions were proper. United States v Wong (2008, CA9 Nev) 2008-1 USTC P 50205, 101 AFTR 2d 951.

Unpublished: Defendant's convictions for violating 18 USCS §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 1001(a)(2) were affirmed where evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions, and district court did not err in its deliberate ignorance jury instruction; sentence was affirmed as district court did not improperly enhance defendant's sentence. United States v Tureaud (2006, CA11 Fla) 2006 US App LEXIS 3240.

Unpublished: Defendant's conviction for false statements and representations was affirmed where there was sufficient evidence to support finding that one party was sham purchaser of real property and that defendant, not other party, was true owner; further, evidence also sufficiently showed that defendant bought three vehicles in name of company, rather than in his own name, even though he was not authorized to sign title certificates in name of company; individuals to whom defendant transferred vehicles also testified that they dealt only with defendant and not with company. United States v Russo (2006, CA3 NJ) 2006 US App LEXIS 3731.

Unpublished: Defendant's challenge to sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction for conspiracy to commit immigration fraud (stemming from conspiracy to arrange fraudulent marriages between Middle Eastern men and African-American women) failed because Government presented testimony of four of six co-conspirators involved in marriage-fraud conspiracy, each of whom testified as to first defendant's knowledge of conspiracy and his involvement therein. United States v Serag (2006, CA4 Va) 2006 US App LEXIS 13357.

Unpublished: Evidence was sufficient for conviction of making false material statement to federal agent, in violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2), based on defendant's role in real estate scheme involving property-flipping through use of straw-buyers in whose names loans were obtained, through providing false information to lenders, because evidence showed that defendant assisted in perpetrating scheme by concealing "flip" nature of transactions from lenders, including falsifying documentation regarding disbursement of loan proceeds, and by concealing fact that same straw-buyer was purchasing multiple properties in rapid succession all as primary residences. United States v Lutz (2006, CA4 NC) 2006 US App LEXIS 30797.

Unpublished: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for willfully making material false statement to agent of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, because (1) according to testimony of FBI agent, defendant made statements at issue in course of investigation by FBI and Immigration and Naturalization Service into possible visa violations by one of defendant's employees, (2) defendant told agent that employee was contract employee who received 1099 tax form at end of year and that appropriate withholdings were made from employee's pay, (3) United States established at trial that this statement was false because employee did not receive 1099 tax form nor were any withholdings made from employee's pay, (4) jury was entitled to conclude that defendant's statements that employee and other contract employees were being properly reported to Internal Revenue Service were knowingly and willfully false, and (5) these statements were material to FBI's legitimate law enforcement activities. United States v Abuhawwas (2007, CA4 Va) 2007 US App LEXIS 2245.

Unpublished: In case in which defendant asserted that district court erred by admitting computer printouts to establish his prior convictions that were not properly certified records of conviction when originals were destroyed, defendant's 51-month sentence for making false statement on food stamp program application, in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 was affirmed since district court had sufficient, reliable evidence that he had misdemeanor convictions; while original records had been destroyed, district court had: (1) copy of computer screen that displayed facts of case and had defendant's correct Social Security number and date of birth, (2) waiver of arraignment signed by defendant, and (3) general letter and testimony stating reason why originals could not be provided. United States v Johnson (2007, CA11 Ala) 2007 US App LEXIS 6444.

Unpublished: Where defendant argued that district court erred in finding that his offense involved more than minimal planning, under USSG § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) (1994), defendant's 51-month sentence for making false statement on food stamp program application, in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, was affirmed since, in light of defendant's repeated redemptions of food stamps made possible by his false statement that he had no prior convictions, and in light of district court's finding that his redemptions were pure fraud, district court did not err in rejecting his argument that his actions were merely opportune. United States v Johnson (2007, CA11 Ala) 2007 US App LEXIS 6444.

Unpublished: Conviction under 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) for making false statement to agent of FBI that defendant did not know victim was supported by sufficient evidence, including testimony of officer that defendant stated during interview with officer and FBI agent that defendant had never met victim and government's introduction of friend's testimony and audiotape in which defendant told friend that he had been pushed or slapped by victim. United States v Maye (2007, CA11 Fla) 2007 US App LEXIS 17265.

Unpublished: Evidence was sufficient to show that defendant knowingly made false statement to FBI because question of whether defendant "knew" certain individual was not fundamentally ambiguous, and jury saw several diary entries documenting meetings between defendant and individual and defendant's concession that individual might have been his dinner guest. United States v Aref (2008, CA2 NY) 2008 US App LEXIS 14032.

Unpublished: Where jury acquitted defendant on two counts of engaging in sexual acts with female inmate in violation of 18 USCS § 2243(b), defendant's convictions on other counts of engaging in sexual acts with female inmate in violation of 18 USCS § 2243(b), engaging in sexual contact with female inmate in violation of 18 USCS § 2244(a)(4), and making false statements in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 were supported by sufficient evidence because each conviction was supported by testimony of witnesses other than victim and jury was free to believe some parts of victim's testimony and not believe others. United States v DeFonte (2008, CA2 NY) 2008 US App LEXIS 14929.

Unpublished: Given testimony provided by Government at trial detailing conflicting statements that defendant made to investigators, jury was provided ample basis for finding defendant guilty of knowingly and willfully making materially false statement in matter within jurisdiction of executive branch of Government of United States in violation of 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2). United States v Little (2009, CA10 Okla) 2009 US App LEXIS 1142.