United States v. Bedore, No. 71-2292.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MERRILL and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit , and PREGERSON |
| Citation | 455 F.2d 1109 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2292. |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1972 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert G. BEDORE, a/k/a Bedord, Defendant-Appellant. |
455 F.2d 1109 (1972)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert G. BEDORE, a/k/a Bedord, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-2292.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
February 9, 1972.
William H. Mullen (argued), Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Douglas D. McBroom, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MERRILL and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,* District Judge.
HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge:
Bedord appeals from his conviction for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001
On June 19, 1970, Special Agent Henry of the Federal Bureau of Investigation went to Bedord's home to locate Bedord for whom a subpoena was outstanding. The subpoena directed Bedord to appear at the trial of one Milford Cook. The subpoena was in the possession of a deputy marshal who had earlier called when Bedord was not at home. When Bedord answered the door, Henry identified himself as an FBI agent, told Bedord that he was looking for Robert G. Bedord for service of a subpoena, and asked him his name. Bedord said he was Tom Halstead, who was, in fact, Bedord's roommate. Henry asked him to tell Bedord to call the United States Attorney when Bedord contacted "Halstead."
We hold that Congress did not intend section 1001 to apply to Bedord's giving a false name to Henry, because his response was not within the class of false statements that section 1001 was designed to proscribe.
Section 1001 provides:
"Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." (Emphasis added.)1
If the italicized portion of section 1001 were read literally, virtually any false statement, sworn or unsworn, written or oral, made to a Government employee could be penalized as a felony. Thus read, section 1001 would swallow up perjury statutes and a plethora of other federal statutes proscribing the making of false representations in respect of specific agencies and activities of Government.2 Extension of section 1001 to its literal breadth, however, cannot be justified by its legislative history. Because its history is detailed in United States v. Bramblett (1955) 348 U.S. 503, 504-08, 75 S.Ct. 504, 99 L.Ed. 594, and United States v. Gilliland (1941) 312 U.S. 86, 93-95, 61 S.Ct. 518, 85 L.Ed. 598, we simply sketch the highlights.
Section 1001 originated more than 100 years ago in a statute drawn to penalize persons who made fraudulent claims for money against the Government. The statute was amended in 1934 "to embrace false and fraudulent statements or representations where these were knowingly and willfully used in documents or
affidavits `in any matter within the jurisdiction of any...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Thevis, Crim. No. H-78-73
...States v. Bramblett, supra, 348 U.S. at 508, 75 S.Ct. 504. A case similar on its facts to the present case is United States v. Bedore, 455 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1972). An FBI agent had gone to the defendant's home for the purpose of serving a subpoena on him. When the defendant answered the d......
-
U.S. v. Chevoor, No. 75--1144
...386 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 951, 73 S.Ct. 864, 97 L.Ed. 1374 (1951) (false net worth statements). 10 United States v. Bedore, 455 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1972) (F.B.I. agent trying to serve subpoena asked defendant if he was Before; he said he was not); United States v. Ehrlichman, 3......
-
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Rios, RODRIGUEZ-RIO
...1742 (1980); Criminal Code Reform Act of 1981, S. 1630, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. Sec. 1343(a)(1)(A) (1981)). 20 United States v. Bedore, 455 F.2d 1109, 1110 (9th Cir.1972); Stark, 131 F.Supp. at 207 ("The sweeping generality of the language of section 1001, especially when isolated as it appea......
-
U.S. v. Goldfine, Nos. 74-3397
...as measured by collateral circumstances." Under such tests the statement here was clearly material. Relying on United States v. Bedore, 455 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1972), Goldfine contends that the statement here was not the kind of statement that the statute was intended to The statement here ......
-
United States v. Thevis, Crim. No. H-78-73
...States v. Bramblett, supra, 348 U.S. at 508, 75 S.Ct. 504. A case similar on its facts to the present case is United States v. Bedore, 455 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1972). An FBI agent had gone to the defendant's home for the purpose of serving a subpoena on him. When the defendant answered the d......
-
U.S. v. Chevoor, No. 75--1144
...386 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 951, 73 S.Ct. 864, 97 L.Ed. 1374 (1951) (false net worth statements). 10 United States v. Bedore, 455 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1972) (F.B.I. agent trying to serve subpoena asked defendant if he was Before; he said he was not); United States v. Ehrlichman, 3......
-
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Rios, RODRIGUEZ-RIO
...1742 (1980); Criminal Code Reform Act of 1981, S. 1630, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. Sec. 1343(a)(1)(A) (1981)). 20 United States v. Bedore, 455 F.2d 1109, 1110 (9th Cir.1972); Stark, 131 F.Supp. at 207 ("The sweeping generality of the language of section 1001, especially when isolated as it appea......
-
U.S. v. Goldfine, Nos. 74-3397
...as measured by collateral circumstances." Under such tests the statement here was clearly material. Relying on United States v. Bedore, 455 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1972), Goldfine contends that the statement here was not the kind of statement that the statute was intended to The statement here ......