Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01629/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01629-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
June Audrey Burkhart
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

,,, 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 201989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v . 

JUNE AUDREY BURKHART, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1629 

(D.C. No. 87-20073) 

( D. Kans.) 

Before McKAY and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District 

Judge.** 

**Honorable Layn R. Phillips, District 

District Court for the Western District of 

designation. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Judge, United States 

Oklahoma, sitting by 

June Audrey Burkhart appeals her conviction on a one-count 

indictment charging her with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1014 

(1982). The indictment in this case charged Burkhart in the 

conjunctive with making four materially false statements in a loan 

application submitted to a federally insured bank. On appeal 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1629 Document: 010110034944 Date Filed: 03/20/1989 Page: 1 
Burkhart asserts that: 1) the Government failed to establish that 

these statements were material; 2) the court's instructions 

allowed her conviction to rest on a jury verdict that was not 

unanimous; and 3) the court erred in refusing to give a proposed 

instruction and in refusing to grant her request for a mistrial. 

We affirm. 

I 

Materiality 

Burkhart contends that the Government failed to establish the 

materiality of the statements because the bank had previously 

agreed to fund the loan and because the evidence did not establish 

that her application was received before the loan was approved. 

Burkhart's argument rests on the assertion that actual reliance by 

the bank on the false statements is necessary to establish a 

section 1014 violation, a contention expressly rejected by this 

court. See,~, United States v. Tokoph, 514 F.2d 597, 603 

(10th Cir. 1975). Statements are material if they have the 

capacity to influence the actions of bank officials not 

participating in the fraudulent scheme, see United States v. 

Fairbanks, 541 F.2d 862, 864 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 

1002 (1976), or to influence the actions of bank auditors or 

examiners, see Tokoph, 514 F.2d at 603. Burkhart's reliance on 

United States v. Kramer, 500 F.2d 1185 (10th Cir. 1974), is 

misplaced. This court has described Kramer as "a case limited by 

the peculiarity of its facts," Fairbanks, 541 F.2d at 863, facts 

not present in the case before us. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1629 Document: 010110034944 Date Filed: 03/20/1989 Page: 2 
II 

Unanimity 

In asserting that she was denied her right to a unanimous 

jury verdict, Burkhart makes a confusing and internally 

inconsistent argument. She contends that because the indictment 

listed the four material misrepresentations in the conjunctive, 

the Government was required to prove all four. She then argues 

that reversal is required because the Government's evidence was 

insufficient to send three of the alleged misrepresentations to 

the jury. Notwithstanding her assertion that the jury here had to 

find all four, Burkhart argues that she was denied a unanimous 

jury verdict because the jury could have rested its guilty verdict 

on one of the misrepresentations which should not have gone to the 

jury. In support of this proposition, Burkhart cites United 

States v. Dota, 482 F.2d 1005 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 

1071 (1973). There we held that when the jury is specifically 

instructed that a guilty verdict could be returned if the jury 

found any one of five representations to be false, a general 

guilty verdict must be reversed if the evidence is insufficient as 

to any one of the misrepresentations. 

We have carefully reviewed the record under the appropriate 

standard, see Tokoph, 514 F.2d at 603, and we conclude that the 

Government presented sufficient evidence on all of the 

misrepresentations to send them to the jury. Accordingly, to the 

extent Burkhart argues that the Government was required to present 

sufficient proof of all four and failed in its burden, her 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1629 Document: 010110034944 Date Filed: 03/20/1989 Page: 3 
argument is without merit. In view of the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support all four, Dota likewise provides no ground for 

reversal. 

We have carefully 

error and find them to 

affirmed. 

reviewed Burkhart's other allegations of 

be without merit. The conviction is 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1629 Document: 010110034944 Date Filed: 03/20/1989 Page: 4