U.S. v. Lentz, 74-3833
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Citation | 524 F.2d 69 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-3833,74-3833 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Calvin LENTZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1975 |
Page 69
v.
David Calvin LENTZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Fifth Circuit.
Harvey A. Monroe, Jonesboro, Ga. (Court-appointed. Not Under Act), Paul McGee, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.
Page 70
John W. Stokes, U. S. Atty., Dorothy T. Beasley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before BELL, THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
BELL, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a conviction on each of six counts in an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014, 1 making false statements on mobile home loan applications for the purpose of influencing Federal Savings and Loan Associations whose accounts were insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.
We find no error in the claim that the district court unduly participated in the trial, or that there was a breakdown in the judicial function due to the large amount of documentary evidence and the difficulty encountered by the government in introducing that evidence.
It is urged also that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the convictions, and that the court erred in charging the jury that it was not necessary for the government to show that the statements were presented directly to the savings and loan associations. These assignments of error present questions of substance but, after careful review of the evidence and the appertaining law, we affirm.
Four of the counts involve the Peachtree Federal Savings and Loan Association (Peachtree Federal), and two involve the Newnan Federal Savings and Loan Association (Newnan Federal). The proof demonstrates that each count involves a fictitious sales contract and note, fabricated by defendant, a dealer in mobile homes. These loan packages were discounted through a loan servicing company, American Mobile Mortgage Company (AMMCO), to the two savings and loan associations. Defendant had entered into a dealer agreement with AMMCO. This dealer agreement was executed by defendant in blank but in three instances it refers to AMMCO discounting the mobile home loan to "Bank," with "Bank" being used as a generic term.
It developed that the names of Peachtree Federal and Newnan Federal were added to the dealer agreement by AMMCO at a later time, and there was no proof that defendant ever received a copy with the names added. Indeed, there is no direct proof that he knew that the paper was to be discounted to those particular institutions or to any particular institution covered by § 1014. The assignments by defendant of the loans underlying the six counts in the indictment were executed in blank, with the names of Peachtree or Newnan Federal being inserted subsequently by AMMCO.
We will consider first the alleged error in the charge. The resolution of this question goes also to the standard of proof required on the part of the government.
Section 1014 provides that a defendant must "knowingly" make a false statement or report "for the purpose of influencing in any way the action" of a covered institution. The trial court charged the jury that ". . . it is not necessary to show that the statement or statements were presented directly to such
Page 71
institutions."...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Eaglin, 75-2720
...§ 1072. Hobson, supra. See United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 684-85, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975); United States v. Lentz, 524 F.2d 69, 71 (5th Cir. 5 See generally United States v. Valle-Valdez, 554 F.2d 911, 915 (9th Cir., 1977) (noting argument that instructional error may re......
-
U.S. v. Alston, 77-2050
...Report); H.R.Rep.No.1556, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 35 (1970) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1970, p. 5582; See United States v. Lentz, 524 F.2d 69, 71 (5th Cir. 1975), Rehearing en banc denied, 526 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 13 See, e. g., United States v. Trexler, 474 F.2d 369, 372 (5th Cir.), Cert. deni......
-
United States v. Cavallo, s. 12–15660
...of the type included in the statute.” United States v. Greene, 862 F.2d 1512, 1517 (11th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Lentz, 524 F.2d 69, 71 (5th Cir.1975) ).Obviously, one submits a loan application for the purpose of persuading a bank to approve and issue a loan. And here Cavallo s......
-
United States v. Grasso, 10–50116.
...to banks generally[,] as distinguished from a particular bank.”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting United States v. Lentz, 524 F.2d 69, 71 (5th Cir.1975)). In Bellucci, the defendant submitted a loan application with false statements through his mortgage broker, who eventually conveyed......