Carvahlo v. United States

• Decision Date: 28 June 1962
• Docket Number: No. 16910.,16910.
• Citation: 307 F.2d 394,113 US App. DC 253
• Parties: Bernard J. CARVAHLO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

113 US App. DC 253, 307 F.2d 394 (1962)

Bernard J. CARVAHLO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 16910.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 1, 1962.

Decided June 28, 1962.

Mr. John L. Kilcullen, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Barry Sidman, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Nathan J. Paulson and Alfred Hantman, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Daniel A. Rezneck, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before BAZELON, FAHY and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Carvahlo, appeals his conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1010. The indictment charges that for the purpose of obtaining a loan and advance of credit from the Union Trust Company, with the intent that such loan and advance should be offered to and accepted by the Federal Housing Administration for insurance, defendant passed, uttered and published, or caused to be passed, uttered and published, to the Assistant Treasurer of the trust company, a falsely made credit application for a property improvement loan, which application contained false and fraudulent representations, to wit, that the loan applicant was one Violet M. Terpstra and that she had purchased the residence 3424 Texas Avenue, S. E., Washington, D. C., which statements the defendant knew to be false and fraudulent.

Briefly stated, the facts are that Miss Terpstra, at the request of the defendant, took title to the said property on June 10, 1958, and on that date executed promissory notes securing practically all of the purchase money, which was in fact $21,500. At the time she entered into this transaction, as well as when she entered into all later transactions discussed infra, Miss Terpstra knew what she was doing; she was not in any way deceived into thinking she was performing one action when she was in fact performing another. This differentiates this case from Cohen v. United States, 178 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1947), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 920, 70 S.Ct. 623, 94 L.Ed. 1344.

In February 1959, again at the request of the defendant, Miss Terpstra signed an application for a property improvement loan on the property, in which she signed her name as applicant. The application, printed in standard blank form, read in pertinent part as follows:

"Is Owned Date Price by _________________________ Purchased _______ Paid $________" (Name of Titleholder) Emphasis added

This line was filled in as follows:

"Is Owned Violet M. Terpstra Date Price by _______________________ Purchased 5/58 Paid $21,500" (Name of Titleholder)

The loan was granted on the security of the property and also on the credit rating of Miss Terpstra. (The record discloses that the defendant's credit standing was bad.) Because it later developed that an amount of money equivalent to the amount of the loan was not applied to the improvement of the property, and because there was default in payment of the installments due on the loan, the Federal Housing Administration was called upon to make good its guarantee of the loan.

Bearing in mind Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal...