United States v. James Folsom
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
1. Sufficient evidence supports James Folsom’s conviction for making false statements to a financial institution. Folsom stated on his loan application that, at the time he applied for the loan, he had no outstanding judgments against him. A rational jury could conclude that Folsom knew that this statement was false, given the government’s evidence that Folsom was aware of the existing judgment against him for approximately $250,000 when he applied for the loan. Folsom also stated on the loan application that he was not delinquent or in default on any federal debt, but a rational jury could conclude that Folsom knew this statement was false as well. The government presented evidence that, beginning in February 2013, Folsom had failed to make the required monthly payments on his outstanding judgment, and that he had been in contact with the U.S. Attorney’s Office about his need to begin making the payments. Finally, a rational jury could also conclude that Folsom knowingly made a false statement when he attested that, in the preceding three years, he had held ownership in his primary residence solely in his own name. The government presented evidence that Folsom knew…