unempl.ins.rep. Cch 21,877 United States of America v. Danielle Facchini

These consolidated appeals require that we determine whether 18 U.S.C. § 1001 1 extends to false statements made to a state unemployment insurance program certified and supported by the federal Department of Labor pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. and 26 U.S.C. § 3304 . Ms. Facchini and the other appellants appeal their convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for making false statements to the Oregon Division of Employment. They argue that their statements to the state department were not matters “within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States” and that these misrepresentations were not material.

We find that the false statements to the Oregon Division of Employment were within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department and that they were material. The convictions are affirmed.

BACKGROUND

The appellants applied for unemployment insurance benefits with the State of Oregon Division of Employment. Each gave false information on initial or supplemental benefits claim forms. On the basis of the information, the state improperly paid them unemployment benefits.

Our analysis of § 1001 turns on the relationship between the federal and state governments…

dissenting:

I dissent. I believe the facts of this case fulfill neither section 1001’s jurisdiction requirement nor its materiality requirement. Moreover, I believe it is evident that Congress never intended that section 1001 should apply to individuals applying for state unemployment benefits.

Section 1001 states in full:

(Emphasis added.)

There can be no conviction under section 1001 unless both materiality and jurisdiction are shown. See United States v. *1163 Green, 745 F.2d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 925 , 106 S.Ct. 259 , 88 L.Ed.2d 266 (1985).

Jurisdiction

To satisfy section 1001’s jurisdiction requirement, the defendant’s false statement must “relate to a matter in which a federal agency has power to act,” Green, 745 F.2d at 1208 , and must concern the “authorized functions of an agency or department” rather than “matters peripheral to the business of that body.” United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475, 479 , 104 S.Ct. 1942, 1946 , 80 L.Ed.2d 492 (1984). The Supreme Court’s use of the term “authorized functions” is critical. While it is clear that in order to have jurisdiction an agency need not have a “financial or proprietary interest,” United…

832 F.2d 1159 Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 21,877 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danielle FACCHINI, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 86-3094, 86-3097-86-3102, 86-3104-86-3111, 86-3117, 86-3118, 86-3121-86-3123, 86-3127, 86-3128, 86-3137-86-3140, 86-3148, 86-3154, 86-3161 and 86-3177. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 8, 1987. Decided Nov. 19, 1987. Mark D. Blackman and Steven T. Wax, Federal Public Defender, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellants. Frank Noonan, U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before WRIGHT, WALLACE and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges. EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 These consolidated appeals require that we determine whether 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 1 extends to false statements made to a state unemployment insurance program certified and supported by the federal Department of Labor pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 501 et seq. and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 3304 . Ms. Facchini and the other appellants appeal their convictions under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 for making false statements to the Oregon Division of Employment. They argue that their…