United States v. Michael E. Gaudin

Bad Law
28 F.3d 943·94 Daily Journal DAR 8593·1994 WL 271930·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15516·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4632
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 21, 199490-30334California13,950 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hug, J.

Opinion by Judge HUG; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI.

We granted rehearing en banc in United States v. Gaudin, 997 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir.), rehearing granted, 5 F.3d 374 (1993), to de cide whether the element of materiality in 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is a question of fact that must be determined by the jury. We hold that it is.

Michael E. Gaudin was convicted of one count of equity skimming in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1709-2 for failing to pay United States Housing & Urban Development/Federal Housing Administration (“HUD/FHA”) insured loans, and 48 counts of making false statements on loan documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 . A panel of this court affirmed the equity skimming conviction but reversed the false statements convictions because the district court failed to submit the element of materiality to the jury. United States v. Gaudin, 997 F.2d 1267, 1273 (9th Cir.1993).

The Government’s petition for rehearing requested that we reconsider our circuit precedent holding that materiality is an element of the offenses charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 that must be submitted to the jury. We affirm the opinion of the panel for the reasons therein stated. In this opinion, we discuss in more…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.