United States v. John Henry Godwin

566 F.2d 975, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12860
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 27, 1978
Docket77-5246
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 566 F.2d 975 (United States v. John Henry Godwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. John Henry Godwin, 566 F.2d 975, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12860 (5th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted on thirty-seven counts of submitting false time sheets to a United States Marshal, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 1 After review of the entire record, we are of the opinion that there has been no error, and affirm.

The appellant was employed by the United States Marshal’s Service, guarding hospitalized prisoners. He supervised other guards, and prepared both his and their time sheets. The government’s evidence showed that on many occasions he filled out time sheets for periods when he and other guards were not in fact working, and submitted them to the United States Marshal’s office. He and other guards were paid according to these submissions, and he received kickbacks from other guards.

On appeal, as at trial, the appellant denies any intent to defraud the government, and further asserts that the court’s failure to so charge the jury was error.

In United States v. Lange, 528 F.2d 1280, 1287 (5 Cir. 1976) we stated the five elements necessary to sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001: (1) a statement, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) specific intent, and (5) agency jurisdiction.

Intent to deceive and intent to defraud are not synonymous. Deceive is to cause to believe the false or to mislead. Defraud is to deprive of some right, interest or property by deceit. Since the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is to protect the government against those who would cheat or mislead it in the administration of its programs, a charge that includes specific intent to deceive along with the other elements mentioned above comports with 18 U.S.C. § 1001. United States v. Johnson, 284 F.Supp. 273 (W.D.Mo.1968), aff’d, 410 F.2d 38 (8 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 822, 90 S.Ct. 63, 24 L.Ed.2d 72 (1969). 18 U.S.C. § 1001 does not require that the government prove a specific intent to defraud. Accordingly, since the charge in the instant case was comprised of all of the necessary elements, there is no error.

We have reviewed the other issues raised, and they are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

1

. 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.

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

Related

State of Iowa v. Sydney Leiann Slaughter
Supreme Court of Iowa, 2024
United States v. Greenlaw
84 F.4th 325 (Fifth Circuit, 2023)
United States v. Diana Yates
16 F.4th 256 (Ninth Circuit, 2021)
State of Iowa v. John Robert Hoyman
863 N.W.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2015)
United States v. Kowal
527 F.3d 741 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Michael Kowal
Eighth Circuit, 2008
United States v. Crittenden
Sixth Circuit, 2006
AMERICAN CIV. LIBERTIES UNION OF GEORGIA v. Miller
977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Georgia, 1997)
United States v. Gary Ranum
96 F.3d 1020 (Seventh Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Mercado
871 F. Supp. 103 (D. Puerto Rico, 1994)
Hill v. State
483 N.W.2d 57 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1992)
United States v. Bodhan Gafyczk and Jorge Medina
847 F.2d 685 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Rafael Corsino
812 F.2d 26 (First Circuit, 1987)
United States v. Yermian
468 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. O'BRIEN
501 F. Supp. 140 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1980)
United States v. Joseph Lichenstein and Leo Bella
610 F.2d 1272 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
566 F.2d 975, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-henry-godwin-ca5-1978.