Holstrom

United States v. Holstrom

Good Law
242 F. App'x 397
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 2007No. 06-30008California790 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The government appeals from the dismissal of an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 . Tina Holstrom (“Holstrom”) was charged with making materially false statements in violation of § 1001 in connection with allegedly false time card entries she submitted to her employer Batelle Memorial Institute (“Batelle”), a prime contractor of the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. The facts of this case are familiar to the parties and we recite them here only to the extent necessary to explain our decision.

Section 1001 prohibits a person from making materially false statements in a matter “within the jurisdiction” of a federal department or agency. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a). “Proof of five elements is essential to sustain a conviction for [an] offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 : a statement, falsity, materiality, specific intent, and agency jurisdiction.” United States v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1544 (9th Cir.1991). The district court dismissed the indictment based on the government’s failure to establish the final element, “agency jurisdiction” over Holstrom’s allegedly false time card entries.

Although § 1001 does…

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.