United States v. Romero
Decision Date | 09 April 2013 |
Docket Number | CR No. 09-00260(A)-R |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN J. ROMERO, Defendant. |
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
ROBERT E. DUGDALE
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
WESLEY L. HSU (Cal. State Bar No.: 188015)
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section
1200 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-3045
Facsimile: (213) 894-8601
E-mail: wesley.hsu@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Having considered the papers filed by the parties and oral argument heard on April 8, 2013, the Court hereby DENIES defendant John J. Romero's ("defendant") Motion For Determination That Bar of 29 U.S.C. § 504(a) in [sic] Innaplicable [sic] to Defendant. Title 29, United States Code, Section 504(a) ("Section 504(a)") prohibits persons convicted of offenses described in the statute from serving in various employments including positions with labor unions subject to the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 504. The Supreme Court has required that Section 504(a) be interpreted as a remedial statute protecting union members. See DeVeau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960). Consequently, courts have consistently held that Section 504(a) applies not only to the crimes expressly enumerated in Section 504(a), but also the "functional equivalent" of those crimes. See, e.g., United States v. Hughes, 964 F.2d 536 (6th Cir. 1992) ( ); Kupau v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 597 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1121 (D. Haw. 2009) (); Illario v. Frawley, 426 F. Supp. 1132 (D.N.J. 1977) ( ); Gillette v. United States, 444 F. Supp. 793 (S.D. Fla. 1976) ( ); Hodgson v. Chain Service Restaurant, Luncheonette and Soda Fountain Emp. Union, Local 11, 355 F. Supp. 180 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ( ); Berman v. Teamsters Local 107, 237 F. Supp. 767 (E.D.Pa. 1964) ( ); Lippi v. Thomas, 298 F. Supp. 242, 249 (M.D.Pa. 1969) ( ); Postma v. Teamsters Local 294, 229 F. Supp. 655 (N.D.N.Y.) (), aff'd, 337 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1964).
Here, defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 based on material false statements, namely the under-reporting of union assets in a "Form LM-2" submitted to the United States Department of Labor ("USDOL"). As the Court held in Hughes, this violation of Section 1001 for false statements in a Form LM-2 is the functional equivalent of an enumerated crime in Section 504(a). See 29 U.S.C. § 439(b); see also 29 U.S.C. § 504(a) ( ). Accordingly, the ban applies to defendant.
Moreover, because defendant failed to raise the length of the ban under Section 504(a) at the time of sentencing, the Court cannot and will not at this time reduce the 13-year ban.
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
_________________
WESLEY L. HSU
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Cyber and Intellectual
To continue reading
Request your trial