United States v. Gerald Wright
1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4623, 1993 WL 68613, 988 F.2d 1036 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
False statements made to a state agency are 'matters within the jurisdiction of' a federal agency under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 if the federal agency retains oversight, funding, or enforcement authority over the state program, even when the state has primary enforcement responsibility.
Facts:
- During 1987-1989, Gerald Wright was the superintendent and manager of a water treatment plant and distribution system at Lake Tenkiller, near Vian, Oklahoma.
- As part of his managerial duties, Mr. Wright was required by federal EPA regulations to prepare and file monthly operating reports containing turbidity data with the Sequoyah County (Oklahoma) Health Department.
- Mr. Wright filed false monthly operating reports during this period, purporting to show turbidity information from water samples when, in fact, no samples were analyzed or taken.
- The EPA had granted primary enforcement authority over drinking water standards to the State of Oklahoma on March 30, 1977, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
- Within Oklahoma, the State Department of Health was responsible for enforcing drinking water standards and provided the forms which Mr. Wright filled out and filed with the County Health Department.
- The EPA conducts annual evaluations, semiannual visits, and biannual audits of Oklahoma's public water system program, including random reviews of operational reports of the type Mr. Wright filed.
- The EPA provides annual financial grants ranging from approximately $500,000 to $700,000 to the Oklahoma Department of Health, which are partly dependent on the outcome of EPA’s evaluations of the state program.
- Mr. Wright did not know of the EPA's jurisdiction or that his turbidity reports would be reviewed by or serve as a basis for enforcement action by any federal agency.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Wright on January 9, 1992, charging him with seven counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- Mr. Wright moved in the district court to dismiss the indictment on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the reports he filed were not matters within the jurisdiction of the EPA.
- The district court denied Mr. Wright's motion to dismiss the indictment.
- Mr. Wright entered into a conditional guilty plea to three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001, reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion.
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 false reports to a state health department, which has been granted primary enforcement authority over drinking water standards by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), constitute making false statements 'in any matter within the jurisdiction of' the EPA under 18 U.S.C. § 1001?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephen H. Anderson
Yes, making false reports to a state health department, even when the state has primary enforcement authority delegated by the EPA, constitutes making false statements 'in any matter within the jurisdiction of' the EPA under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The court affirmed that 'jurisdiction' under section 1001 is defined broadly, encompassing 'all matters confided to the authority of an agency or department' or where an agency 'has the power to exercise authority in a particular situation,' not merely 'matters peripheral.' It is not required that the false statement be made directly to the federal agency, nor is the defendant’s awareness of federal jurisdiction relevant. The court reasoned that a grant of primary authority to a state does not equate to a grant of exclusive authority. The EPA retains fundamental authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure national standards are met, including promulgating regulations for turbidity data, which directly concern an authorized EPA function. Furthermore, the EPA remains actively involved in assuring state compliance through ongoing audits, reviews, and evaluations of Oklahoma’s program, including inspecting the type of monthly reports Mr. Wright filed. The Act also explicitly authorizes the EPA to take enforcement actions in states with primary enforcement authority. Finally, the EPA's substantial annual funding to Oklahoma's public water program, which is conditioned on the results of EPA evaluations, provides a sufficient link for jurisdiction, aligning with other circuits that find a state agency’s use of federal funds sufficient to establish § 1001 jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and broadens the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, affirming that federal agencies can maintain jurisdiction over matters delegated to state agencies, particularly when the federal agency retains significant oversight, funding, or residual enforcement authority. The ruling establishes that direct submission of false statements to a federal agency, or a defendant's awareness of federal involvement, is not a prerequisite for federal jurisdiction. This decision reinforces federal accountability in federally mandated or funded state programs, ensuring that individuals cannot evade federal prosecution for fraud simply by interacting with an intermediary state entity.
