United States v. Morris

Opinion

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0043P (6th Cir.)

File Name: 00a0043p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________

; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

No. 99-1798

v.

 >

SAUL J. MORRIS,  Defendant-Appellant. 

1

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 98-80372—Patrick J. Duggan, District Judge.

Argued: December 10, 1999 Decided and Filed: February 7, 2000 Before: BOGGS and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges;

POLSTER*, District Judge.

*

The Honorable Dan A. Polster, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

2 United States v. Morris No. 99-1798

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Richard M. Helfrick, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Karen L. Reynolds, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Richard M. Helfrick, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Paul Burakoff, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM. Defendant Saul J. Morris appeals from his judgment of conviction for misusing a United States Coast Guard certificate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197. The issue on appeal is whether Defendant’s misuse of a copy of an illegally obtained United States Coast Guard certificate of registry certifying Defendant as a marine physician assistant constitutes a violation of § 2197. We AFFIRM.

I.

In January 1991, Defendant submitted an application to the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) for a certificate of registry attesting to his qualifications as a marine physician assistant. Defendant was not entitled to the certificate, however, and obtained it by fraudulently providing false information to the USCG in support of his application.

In 1994 and 1995, Defendant submitted applications at three different health care providers. Defendant supplied two prospective employers with a copy of his USCG certificate. Defendant supplied a third with the serial number of the certificate.

6 United States v. Morris No. 99-1798 No. 99-1798 United States v. Morris 3

this reason, we reject Defendant’s superficial analogies to On May 20, 1998, Defendant pled guilty to an information other statutes. charging him with Misuse of a Federal Certificate in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197. On September 29, 1998, Defendant Furthermore, as pointed out by the Government, § 2197 withdrew his guilty plea and waiver of indictment. A grand also proscribes illegally “exhibiting” a federal certificate. To jury returned an indictment on December 3, 1998, charging give effect to both words, it follows that “use” should be him with three counts of Misuse of a Federal Certificate in interpreted in a broader sense such as utilizing the certificate violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197. After a bench trial, the district in ways other than merely displaying the original certificate or court found Defendant guilty on all counts. showing it to others. See Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods. v. NBD Bank, N.A., 98 F.3d 904, 909 (6th Cir. 1996) (stating Defendant was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment. that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes that render He timely appeals. words superfluous); Barker v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R., 959 F.2d 1361, 1367 (6th Cir. 1992) (stating that courts should II. endeavor to give effect to each word of the statute if possible). Defendant, by submitting either a copy of the certificate or its Section 2197 of Title 18 of the United States Code serial number, thus “used” the certificate in applying for provides, in pertinent part, that: employment as proof of his professional qualification for the position he sought. Whoever, not being lawfully entitled thereto, uses, exhibits, or attempts to use or exhibit, . . . any certificate The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. . . . issued to . . . seamen by any officer or employee of the United States authorized by law to issue the same . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2197 (West 1984).

The present case involves a question of statutory interpretation and is, therefore, subject to de novo review. See United States v. Hans, 921 F.2d 81, 82 (6th Cir. 1990).

Defendant concedes that he was not lawfully entitled to the USCG Certificate of Registry certifying him to be a marine physician assistant because he obtained the certificate by fraud. Defendant further admits that the Certificate was issued by an officer or employee of the United States authorized by law to issue it. The sole issue on appeal is whether Defendant’s use of a copy of the Certificate is subject to punishment under § 2197. Defendant contends that the statute does not prohibit the misuse of a “copy” of a federal certificate.

4 United States v. Morris No. 99-1798 No. 99-1798 United States v. Morris 5

In support of his argument, Defendant points out that in In rejecting Defendant’s arguments, the district court ruled § 2197, Congress prohibits the use of many different types of that: documents. For example, the statute provides that anyone who “alters . . . by addition, interpolation, deletion, or The Court . . . concludes[] that by submitting a copy of erasures” violates the statute. Further, the use of “altered, the Certificate, defendant was using the Certificate. changed, forged, counterfeit . . . [or] blank forms” is Clearly the information on the copy of the Certificate prohibited by the statute. From this, Defendant posits that came from the original Certificate and there is no doubt “Congress clearly foresaw the need to prohibit the use of that defendant was intending to convey the information many types of non-original documents in the very statute on the original Certificate to the prospective employers under consideration. This makes the omission of any by sending a copy of the Certificate. prohibition on the use of a “copy” all the more significant since Congress prohibits the use of copies of other types of Defendant argues that because other statutes documents.” specifically use the word “copy” or “copies,” the Court should conclude that because 18 U.S.C. § 2197 does not Defendant adds that, when Congress wishes to criminalize contain such words, Congress did not intend that a use of the use of a “copy” of a document or thing, it can, and has, a “copy” would be a violation of the statute. The fact expressed its intent in the statute. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C.A. that Congress specifically included the words, “copy” or §§ 922(v)(1) (West Supp. 1999) (making it unlawful to “copies” in a statute relating to the unlawful possession possess a semiautomatic assault weapon) and 921(a)(30) of a semi-automatic assault weapon, see 18 U.S.C. (West Supp. 1999) (defining “semiautomatic assault weapon” § 922(c)(v)(1) and 921(a)(30), or because Congress as “any of the firearms or copies or duplicates of the firearms specifically included the word “copy” in 18 U.S.C. in any caliber, . . . .” (emphasis added)); 18 U.S.C.A. § 1015(c) (improper use of a naturalization certificate), § 1015(c) (West Supp. 1999) (providing that “[w]hoever uses or 18 U.S.C. § 1905 (prohibiting improper disclosure of or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of income tax returns) does not persuade this Court that the intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of failure to specifically include the word “copy” in 18 citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization, U.S.C. § 2197 suggests a Congressional intent not to or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have prohibit the misuse of a copy of a Certificate. been procured by fraud or false evidence . . . .” ); 18 U.S.C.A. § 1905 (West 1999) (“Whoever, being an officer or employee We agree with the district court. By providing prospective of the United States or of any department or agency thereof employers with a copy of the federal certificate or its serial . . . permits any income return or copy thereof . . . to be seen number in order to procure a job, Defendant made use of the or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall certificate itself or, more specifically, the information be fined under this title . . . .”); 18 U.S.C.A. § 2318(a) (West contained therein. In this instance, the copy was the Supp. 1999) (“Whoever, . . . knowingly traffics in a functional equivalent of the original for the purposes counterfeit label affixed or designed to be affixed to a phono Defendant employed it. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 1003 (stating that record, or a copy of a computer program or documentation or a duplicate of an original writing is admissible as evidence to packaging for a computer program, or a copy of a motion the same extent as an original unless there is a genuine picture . . . knowingly traffics in counterfeit documentation or question as to the original’s authenticity or it would otherwise packaging for a computer program, shall be fined under this be unfair to admit the duplicate instead of the original). For title . . . .”).