United States v. Robert S. Falcone, Sandra S. Falcone

960 F.2d 988, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 11112, 1992 WL 89344
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMay 20, 1992
Docket89-5718
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 960 F.2d 988 (United States v. Robert S. Falcone, Sandra S. Falcone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. Robert S. Falcone, Sandra S. Falcone, 960 F.2d 988, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 11112, 1992 WL 89344 (11th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We took this case en banc 1 to reconsider our holding in United States v. Hope, 861 F.2d 1574 (11th Cir.1988). In Hope, we held that in order for the government to establish that a defendant conspired to commit an “offense against the United States” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1988), 2 the prosecution must allege and prove that the defendant conspired to injure the United States or one of its agencies. In the case at hand, the Government charged, and proved, that the defendants conspired to commit the following offenses against the United States: the violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 3 1344(a)(2), 4 and 2113 5 (1988). Following Hope’s holding, the panel reversed the defendants’ convictions. United States v. Falcone, 934 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir.), vacated, reh’g en banc granted, 939 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir.1991). The panel, however, did so reluctantly. The panel felt the conspiracy convictions should be upheld — that Hope had been wrongly decided — and suggested that the case be reheard en banc. See Falcone, 934 F.2d 1528, 1548 (11th Cir.) (Tjoflat, C.J., special *990 ly concurring, joined by Powell, Assoc. Justice, and Kravitch, J.).

We agree with the panel’s appraisal of Hope and, for the reasons set forth in Chief Judge Tjoflat’s special concurrence, overrule Hope’s holding. 6 See id. at 1548-51. Specifically, we hold that in establishing a conspiracy “to commit any offense against the United States,” the government need not allege or prove that the United States or an agency thereof was an intended victim of the conspiracy.

Accordingly, the appellants’ convictions under section 371 are reinstated and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

. See United States v. Falcone, 939 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir.1991).

2

. 18 U.S.C. § 371 states, in pertinent part:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
3

. 18 U.S.C. § 1014 states, in pertinent part:

Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report ... for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of ... any bank the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ... upon any application, advance, discount, purchase, purchase agreement, repurchase agreement, commitment, or loan, or any change or extension of any of the same, by renewal, deferment of action or otherwise, or the acceptance, release, or substitution of security therefor, shall be fined not more than $5000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
4

. The version of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 that was in effect when the appellants were indicted states, in pertinent part:

fa) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1) to defraud a federally chartered or insured financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities or other property owned by or under the custody or control of a federally chartered or insured financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

In 1989, Congress amended section 1344, in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Pub.L. No. 101-73, Title IX, § 961(k), 103 Stat. 183, 500..

5

.18 U.S.C. § 2113 states, in pertinent part:

Whoever enters or attempts to enter any bank ... with intent to commit in such bank ... any felony affecting such bank ... and in violation of any statute of the United States, or any larceny—
Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Whoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or motley ... of value exceeding $100 belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
6

. We do not, however, disturb the panel’s disposition of appellant’s challenges to his convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344(a)(2) (1988) (counts V, VI, VII, VIII, & IX of the indictment); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(b) (1988) (counts X & XI of the indictment); and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344(a)(2), 2113(a) (1988) (counts XII & XIII of the indictment). See Falcone,

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

Related

Enis v. Comm'r
2017 T.C. Memo. 222 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
United States v. Marlan L. Copeland
662 F. App'x 750 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Ayewoh
627 F.3d 914 (First Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Rigas
605 F.3d 194 (Third Circuit, 2010)
Brewster v. McNeil
720 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (S.D. Florida, 2009)
United States v. Rigas
565 F. Supp. 2d 620 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2008)
Brewster v. United States
559 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (S.D. Florida, 2008)
United States v. Adkinson
256 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (N.D. Florida, 2003)
United States v. Robert McCarrick
294 F.3d 1286 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Denver H. Linville
228 F.3d 1330 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Adkinson
158 F.3d 1147 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Daniels
12 F. Supp. 2d 568 (N.D. Texas, 1998)
United States v. Neder
136 F.3d 1459 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Goldsmith
109 F.3d 714 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Wadsworth, Inc. v. Schwarz-Nin
951 F. Supp. 314 (D. Puerto Rico, 1996)
United States v. Goldberg
913 F. Supp. 629 (D. Massachusetts, 1996)
United States v. Brandon
First Circuit, 1994

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
960 F.2d 988, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 11112, 1992 WL 89344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-s-falcone-sandra-s-falcone-ca11-1992.