United States v. Ellenrose Louise Hart

291 F.3d 1084, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 5869, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4561, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9972, 2002 WL 1050511
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 28, 2002
Docket01-10220
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 291 F.3d 1084 (United States v. Ellenrose Louise Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ellenrose Louise Hart, 291 F.3d 1084, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 5869, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4561, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9972, 2002 WL 1050511 (9th Cir. 2002).

Opinions

[1085]*1085OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents the question whether materiality is an element of the crime of making a false statement in an application for a United States passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. We have implicitly indicated that it is not, see United States v. Suarez-Rosario, 287 F.3d 1164, 1167(9th Cir.2001), and now explicitly hold that proof of materiality is not required for this “false statement” offense.

Ellenrose Hart appeals her conviction, following a jury trial, on one count of violating § 1542. She contends that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that materiality was an element.

Section 1542 criminalizes “willfully and knowingly mak[ing] any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport.” The text makes no mention of materiality, nor has the phrase “false statement” accumulated settled meaning requiring proof of materiality under common law. Accordingly, as the Supreme Court has stated, the term “does not imply a materiality requirement.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 28 n. 7, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (citing United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 491, 117 S.Ct. 921, 137 L.Ed.2d 107 (1997)). The Eleventh Circuit, which is the only other circuit directly to address whether materiality is necessary for conviction under § 1542, has also held that it is not. See United States v. Ramos, 725 F.2d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir.1984). We join it now.

Hart’s remaining argument, that there was insufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she violated § 1542, is unavailing. She falsely stated in her passport application that she had no social security number and had never been issued a United States passport. There was ample evidence that her false statements were made willingly and knowingly, as she had requested numerous changes of name on her social security card over the years and had used her United States passport to travel three times in 1997 and 1998. Finally, Hart followed up on the false application by calling the National Passport Information Center as well as two senators and a congressman, thereby manifesting her intent to secure issuance of the passport.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Pritchard
Ninth Circuit, 2026
United States v. Lebreault Feliz
807 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Bruteyn
373 F. App'x 247 (Third Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Najera Jimenez
593 F.3d 391 (Fifth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Hasan
Second Circuit, 2009
United States v. Youssef
Ninth Circuit, 2008
Rodriguez v. Gonzales
451 F.3d 60 (Second Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Osama Musa Alferahin
433 F.3d 1148 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Alferahin
Ninth Circuit, 2006
United States v. Salinas
373 F.3d 161 (First Circuit, 2004)
Hart v. United States
537 U.S. 962 (Supreme Court, 2002)
United States v. Ellenrose Louise Hart
291 F.3d 1084 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 F.3d 1084, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 5869, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4561, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9972, 2002 WL 1050511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ellenrose-louise-hart-ca9-2002.