Lowe v. United States, 10857.
| Citation | 141 F.2d 1005 |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10857.,10857. |
| Parties | LOWE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
D. R. Coley, Jr., of Mobile, Ala., for appellant.
Albert J. Tully, U. S. Atty., of Mobile, Ala., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a judgment entered upon appellant's plea of nolo contendere to an indictment purporting to charge that he violated Section 35 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 80. The sole question for decision is whether the demurrer interposed to the indictment should have been sustained for the reason that it charged no offense against the United States.
The relevant portion of said statute provides that whoever shall make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or misrepresentations, or make or use or cause to be made or used any false bill, voucher, account, or claim, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or of any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, shall be fined or imprisoned or both.
Eliminating formal parts, the indictment charged that appellant, on March 15, 1943, made a false statement or representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States in that he, as an employee of the Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Company who received wages based upon the number of hours worked, on said date falsely represented to the person in charge of the payroll department of the company that he had worked eight hours on March 13, 1943, in the course of his employment, at which time the company was engaged in building ships under a contract with the United States Maritime Commission, an agency of the United States, providing that the company should make its payroll payments and should be directly reimbursed therefor by the Treasury of the United States.
It is not claimed that the United States owned stock in the company; and the validity of the indictment depends upon whether the alleged fact that the United States reimbursed the company for its payroll payments was sufficient to make the alleged misrepresentation with respect to the payroll entry a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. We think not.
Accepting the allegations of the indictment as true, appellant's employment was derived from his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bazantes, No. 17-15721
...and Bazantes insist compel us to hold that the payroll records in this case are not a matter within the jurisdiction of the CDC are the Lowe and Blankenship decisions. See Lowe v. United States, 141 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1944) ; Blankenship, 382 F.3d at 1141. They involved different federal a......
-
U.S. v. Stanford
...States in the matter to which the statement relates is peripheral. Compare Ebeling v. United States, supra, with Lowe v. United States, 141 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1944). In other instances, a showing that the defendant had actual knowledge of federal involvement might lessen the need for a det......
-
U.S. v. Evans
...denied, 400 U.S. 965, 91 S.Ct. 367, 27 L.Ed.2d 384 (1970); Arbuckle v. United States, 146 F.2d 657 (D.C.Cir. 1944); Lowe v. United States, 141 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1944). The statutes involved here manifest an underlying congressional intent that the Office of Education should maintain regul......
-
U.S. v. Blankenship
...that suggest the contrary, our circuit precedent is consistent with this conclusion. Our earliest relevant case, Lowe v. United States, 141 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir.1944) (Holmes, J.), addressed 18 U.S.C. § 80, the forerunner to § 1001 . This law [W]hoever shall knowingly and willfully... make o......