Owen v. United States, 24595.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1967
• Docket Number: No. 24595.,24595.
• Citation: 386 F.2d 774
• Parties: William E. OWEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

386 F.2d 774 (1967)

William E. OWEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 24595.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

December 1, 1967.

William E. Walsh, Jr., Miami, Fla., for appellant.

Michael J. Osman, Asst. U. S. Atty., William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before COLEMAN and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges, and HANNAY, District Judge.

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge:

Section 645(a) of Title 15, United States Code provides that:

"Whoever makes any statement knowing it to be false * * * for the purpose of obtaining for himself or for any applicant any loan from the Small Business Administration * * * shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both."

In connection with a loan, appellant was convicted, in three counts, of three separate falsifications in violation of this section. We affirm.

After hurricane Cleo struck the Miami area in September, 1964, appellant made application to the Small Business Administration for a disaster loan of $9,000. On the written application filed for the purpose of obtaining the loan, responding to a specific question, appellant stated there had been no judgments or suits against him. The proof showed absolutely that there were ten judgments of record against him. Accepting the Government's version of the facts, as the jury did, there can be no doubt of guilt as to the Count which charged this particular falsification. It is of no benefit to appellant that an attorney, working for S.B.A. on a fee basis per case, learned of some of the judgments before he closed the loan. The gravamen of the offense is the making of the false statement, knowing it to be false, for the purpose of obtaining the loan. The fact that the attorney later learned the truth did not change the falsity of the representation when made. The offense was completed at the time Owen delivered the application to the attorney, knowing it to be false, and knowing that it was being delivered to a duly authorized representative of S.B.A.

As to this particular loan it was also necessary, before applicant received the proceeds, that he file receipts for purchases made in accordance with the application. On October 22, 1964, prior to receipt of the funds, appellant filed two such "paid invoices" with the closing attorney. These, too, were false. The indictment charged that the invoices were submitted on January 25, 1965. This, of course, was a date subsequent to the disbursement of the loan. If the invoices were actually filed on January 25, 1965, they obviously could not have induced the Small Business Administration to make a loan which had been closed three months previously. Appellant thus argues that the convictions on these two counts cannot stand because the indictment alleged an impossible date. The proof showed, however, that the closing attorney received the paid invoices prior to October 22, 1964, and that he would not have disbursed the proceeds had they not been filed. It was further shown that the indictment charged January 25, 1965, because the documents as submitted to the grand jury bore an S.B.A. file mark of...