United States v. Dennis D. Herring
1990 WL 162953, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 19862, 916 F.2d 1543 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Making a false statement to a state agency that receives federal funds for administrative costs is a matter within the jurisdiction of a United States agency and can be prosecuted under the federal false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Facts:
- On January 12, 1987, Dennis D. Herring began working for an Ohio construction company.
- Two days later, on January 14, 1987, Herring applied for unemployment insurance benefits from the Georgia Department of Labor.
- On his application, Herring falsely stated that he had left his prior job for lack of work and was currently unemployed.
- Based on his initial false application, Herring made four subsequent requests for benefits and was paid a total of $870 in unemployment benefits from Georgia state funds.
- The Georgia Department of Labor's unemployment program is approved by the United States Secretary of Labor.
- The Georgia Department of Labor receives federal funding from the United States Secretary of Labor to cover its administrative costs.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Dennis D. Herring in a federal district court on five counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- Herring initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty on one count, with the remaining counts dismissed.
- Before sentencing, Herring filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of federal jurisdiction, relying on a recent Ninth Circuit decision.
- The district court denied Herring's motion to dismiss.
- The district court changed Herring's plea to a conditional guilty plea, which preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
- Herring, as the appellant, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does making a false statement on an application for state unemployment benefits to a state agency, which receives federal funding for administrative costs, constitute making a false statement in a matter 'within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States' under 18 U.S.C. § 1001?
Opinions:
Majority - Hatchett, Circuit Judge
Yes. Making a false statement to a state agency receiving federal administrative funds falls within the jurisdiction of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The court rejected the Ninth Circuit's narrow interpretation in United States v. Facchini, which required a direct nexus between the false statement and an authorized function of the federal agency. Instead, the court followed its own precedent in United States v. Suggs, holding that jurisdiction under § 1001 should not be narrowly or technically defined. The fact that the Georgia Department of Labor receives federal funds for administrative costs and is subject to federal administrative guidelines is sufficient to establish federal agency jurisdiction. The court also held that the false statements were material because they had the capability of influencing the Secretary of Labor's function in ensuring federal funds are not depleted through fraudulent claims that corrupt the administration of the program.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a broad interpretation of federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 within the Eleventh Circuit, creating a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit's more restrictive approach. It affirms that a federal financial nexus, even if limited to administrative funding rather than the benefit payments themselves, is sufficient to bring fraudulent conduct directed at a state agency under the purview of federal criminal law. This interpretation expands the reach of federal prosecutors to combat fraud in state-administered programs that have any connection to federal funding, reinforcing the federal government's interest in protecting the integrity of such programs.
