Lexstat 18 usc section 1001 united states code service

Unpublished: In sentencing defendant on his conviction of failing to report transportation of monetary instruments in excess of $ 10,000 under 31 USCS § 5316, acting with intent to evade currency reporting requirement under 31 USCS § 5332, and making false statement to U.S. Customs and Border Protection under 18 USCS § 1001, condition of supervised release that prohibited defendant from using cell phone without prior approval of his probation officer was not closely connected to nature of his crimes; there was nothing in record to suggest nexus between use of cell phone and defendant's crimes, and cell phones were in such widespread use throughout world that restricting use of any cell phone was serious restriction of liberty. United States v Zigetta (2007, CA9 Cal) 2007 US App LEXIS 21620.

Unpublished: In sentencing defendant on his conviction of failing to report transportation of monetary instruments in excess of $ 10,000 under 31 USCS § 5316, acting with intent to evade currency reporting requirement under 31 USCS § 5332, and making false statement to U.S. Customs and Border Protection under 18 USCS § 1001, district court did not commit plain error by imposing as condition of supervised release special condition that prohibited defendant from working as investment counselor because condition was clearly related to crimes of conviction; defendant never disputed fact that he was smuggling cash (including counterfeit American currency) for purposes of investing. United States v Zigetta (2007, CA9 Cal) 2007 US App LEXIS 21620.

Unpublished: In sentencing defendant on his conviction of failing to report transportation of monetary instruments in excess of $ 10,000 under 31 USCS § 5316, acting with intent to evade currency reporting requirement under 31 USCS § 5332, and making false statement to U.S. Customs and Border Protection under 18 USCS § 1001, district court did not commit plain error by imposing as condition of supervised release condition that prohibited defendant from maintaining storage facilities away from his principal residence; given nature of defendant's crimes, condition appeared reasonable. United States v Zigetta (2007, CA9 Cal) 2007 US App LEXIS 21620.

Unpublished: Where plea agreement provided that defendant was aware that any sentence could be up to maximum allowed by statute for offense, he could not have reasonably believed that he could only be sentenced according to two counts he pleaded guilty to under 18 USCS § 1001(a)(3) and not according to five counts government agreed to dismiss. United States v Delgado (2007, CA5 Tex) 2007 US App LEXIS 25397.

Unpublished: District court properly applied 12-point increase in offense level under former USSG § 2F1.1(b)(1)(M) following defendant's guilty plea to violating 18 USCS §§ 1001 and 2, because unchallenged presentence report and detailed supporting documentation proved $ 1.9 million loss amount by clear and convincing evidence; consideration of dismissed counts and of losses outside statute of limitations was proper under 18 USCS § 3661 notwithstanding fact that applicable burden of proof was clear and convincing evidence. United States v Calderon (2008, CA9 Cal) 2008 US App LEXIS 2988.

Unpublished: Defendant's sentence following his convictions for crimes pursuant to 18 USCS §§ 922(g)(1), 1001(a)(2) and 21 USCS §§ 841(a)(1), 844(a) was not improperly enhanced pursuant to USSG §§ 2D1.1, cmt., application n. 12; 3B1.5(2)(B); and 4A1.2(m) as many witnesses corroborated drug amounts and estimates were conservative, he was wearing body armor for its intended purpose when arrested for possession of drugs with intent to distribute, and warrant was outstanding when he was arrested; that warrant was later withdrawn was irrelevant. United States v Chambers (2008, CA10 Okla) 2008 US App LEXIS 4784.

Unpublished: Defendant's 48-month sentence for falsifying his commercial truck driver logbook entries, violation of 18 USCS § 1001, was affirmed because district court was not required to identify aggravating circumstances to justify its variance from advisory guidelines range of 8-14 months as it had denied upward departure under USSG § 5K2.1 for fatal crash that occurred in case, and further, district court gave meaningful consideration to 18 USCS § 3553(a) factors and reasonably applied them to case where (1) district court observed that falsification of logbooks in order to circumvent United States Department of Transportation safety regulations was serious offense that carried risk far greater than those for most document falsifications, as well as history and characteristics of defendant; (2) district court emphasized need for sentence to reflect seriousness of offense and to provide adequate deterrence; and (3) district court explicitly stated that upward variance reflected defendant's repeated violations over short period of time of 18 USCS § 1001 and 49 C.F.R. § 395.8, not accident. United States v Sandhu (2008, CA3) 2008 US App LEXIS 5391.

Unpublished: Defendant's embezzlement of his employer's funds was properly considered relevant conduct for purpose of increasing his sentence under USSG § 1B1.3 for making false statements in violation of 18 USCS § 1001 because district court was entitled to find that defendant made false statements to his halfway house concerning his whereabouts to hide fact that he was gambling at casino, that he misappropriated his employer's funds to facilitate gambling, and that these acts constituted either same course of conduct or common scheme or plan of gambling. United States v McConnell (2008, CA5 La) 2008 US App LEXIS 7795.

Unpublished: Defendant's embezzlement of his employer's funds, as well as false statements he made to his halfway house in violation of 18 USCS § 1001, were offenses covered by USSG § 2B1.1; such offenses were among those required to be grouped together under USSG § 3D1.2(d); thus, embezzlement was properly grouped with false statement offense for purposes of increasing defendant's sentence under USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2). United States v McConnell (2008, CA5 La) 2008 US App LEXIS 7795.

Unpublished: Defendant's 60-month sentence for making false statements under 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2) was not plainly erroneous under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 because issue of applying cross-reference contained in USSG § 2B1.1(c)(3) and calculating guideline range under USSG § 2J1.2 for obstruction of justice was not clear under controlling precedent. United States v Ochoa (2008, CA11 Fla) 2008 US App LEXIS 18657.

Unpublished: Where for year, in connection with his firearm, false statements, and fraud violations under 18 USCS §§ 922(g)(1), (9), 924(a), 1001(a)(3), 1341, 1343, defendant two, convicted felon, carried gun while posing as police officer after using fraudulent fingerprints to be hired, he could not escape culpability by arguing he was "required" to use gun in connection with scheme to defraud, and USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement for use of firearm in connection with another felony was warranted. United States v Arneth (2008, CA11 Ga) 2008 US App LEXIS 20005.

Unpublished: Although district court stated orally that defendant's 21-month sentence for violating supervised release, which was imposed upon her conviction for violating 18 USCS § 1001(a)(2), exceeded advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual range of four to 10 months because defendant appeared to be unable to complete supervised release due to her drug problem and that defendant would need 18 months to complete prison drug treatment program, remand was required because district court's reasons had to be in writing pursuant to 18 USCS § 3553(c). United States v Massengill (2009, CA11 Ala) 2009 US App LEXIS 5840.

Unpublished: Defendant's sentence upon revocation of supervised release was reasonable because district court sentenced within applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual range after considering factors in 18 USCS §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e); sentence was not unduly harsh given that she may have violated 18 USCS § 1001, federal offense. United States v Wilkins (2010, CA11 Ga) 2010 US App LEXIS 2508.

Unpublished: Defendant's 108-month sentence for violating 18 USCS §§ 371, 1001, and 1957 in relation to scheme to file fraudulent applications for immigration benefits was properly enhanced based on evidence she involved minor and actively encouraged minor to violate 18 USCS §§ 1001 and 1546(a); sentence reflected seriousness of scheme, which involved over 1,000 applications, covered many states, used church to launder money, and used minor to assist in scheme. United States v Gerald (2010, CA11 Ga) 2010 US App LEXIS 2518.

Unpublished: In case in which defendant had been convicted of violating 31 USCS § 5332 and 18 USCS § 1001 and he challenged district court's order that he forfeit entire amount involved in offense, district court's forfeiture order did not violate Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment. United States v Akinmukomi (2010, CA4 Va) 2010 US App LEXIS 5260.