FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT May 23, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 17156

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 0 3 0 - C R - 3 - R D P - T MP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s B E N J A M I N H O R A C E R I C H E Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ay 23, 2008) B ef ore D U B IN A and B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg es , and S C H L E S IN G E R , * D i stri ct Judg e.

___________________ *Honora ble Har vey E. Schlesing er, United States District Judg e for the Middle District of F lorida, sitting by

designation. .Duringthe district court proc eeding s, Richey did not specifically

identify his argument 1 as beingbased on theprinciples of judicial estoppel. However, heexpli citly identifies judicial e stopp e l a s th eba sisfor his a rg ument on a

pp e al. A c c ording ly, w eanaly zed hisa pp e al on thi s basis without consideration of a rguments relate d to entrapment by estoppel or e quitable estoppel. 2 P E R C U R I A M: B e n ja m in R ic h e y ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rk n o w in g lym a k in g am a te r ia lly f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s t o f

e de r a l a ge nt s i n the c our s e of a n i nve s t i ga t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1001. T he i ndi c tm e nta ga i ns tR i c he ya l l e ge d tha t , on orabout N ove m be r6, 2003, R i c he y f a l s e l y r e pr e s e nt e d t o F e de r a l B ur e au of I nve s t i ga t i on ( “ F B I ” ) a ge nt s tha thi s c l i e ntE r i c H um phr i e s ’ s pa y m e ntof $6, 500. 00 t o the F r a n k lin C o u n tyD is tr ic t A tto rn e y ’s F u n d w a s n o t r e la te d to th e f a v o r ab le sett l em en to f H u m p h ri es’ s cri m i n al case. H e arg u es th atth e i n d i ctm en tag ai n st hi m shou l d h ave been quashed because the F B I l ac ked j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe m att er of hi s f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s a nd j udi c i a l e s t oppe l ba rr e d f e de r a l pr os e c ut i on of

hi m f or 1 h is o f f e n s e c o n d u c t. T h e r e f

o r e , h e c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr o n e o u s ly d e n ie d h is m o tio n to q u a s h a n d m o tio n f o rn e w tr ia l. I. W h e th e rad e f

e n d a n t ’ s c r i mi n a l c o n du c tw a s p r o s e c u t ab l e u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 1001 i s aque s t i on of

l a w s ubj e c tt o de novo r e vi e w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a w s on, 80 9 F . 2d 15 14 , 15 17 (11th C i r. 19 87 ). W i th res pectt o revi ew i ng deni al of a m ot i on for new tri al , w e r evi ew the deni al for abu se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es3

v. C am pa, 45 9 F . 3d 11 21 , 11 51 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( en banc). S e c t i on 1001 of

T i t l e 18 of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ode puni s he s a nype r s on w ho k n o w i n g l y an d w i l l fu l l y: (1 ) f al si fi es , conceal s, or covers up by any tri ck, sc hem e, or devi ce a m a t e r i a l f

a c t ; ( 2) m a ke s a nym a t e r i a l l yf a l s e , f i c t i t i ous , orf

r audul e nt s t a t e m e ntorr e pr e s e nt at i o n ; or( 3) m a ke s orus e s a nyf a l s e w r i t i ng or d o cu m en tk n o w i n g th e s am e t o co n t ai n an y m at eri al l y fal se, fi ct i t i o u s, o r frau d u l en tst at em en to r en try. 18 U . S . C . § 1001( a ) . W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha tthe purpos e of § 1001 i s t o pr e ve nt m i sr epre se nt at i on s t o the fe dera l go vernm entand p rot ec tthe i nt egri ty of off i ci al in q u ir ie s . U n ite d S ta te s v . L o n d o n , 7 1 4 F .2 d 1 5 5 8 , 1 5 6 1 - 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . W e have hel d thatvi ol at i on of § 1 00 1 requi re s the proo f of f i ve el em ent s: (1) a st at em ent ; (2) f

al si ty; (3) m at er i al i ty; (4) s peci fi c i nt ent ; and (5) agency j ur i s di c t i on. L a w s on, 809 F . 2d a t1517. T he S upr e m e C ourtha s e m pha s i z e d tha t“ the t e rm ‘ j ur i s di c t i on’ s houl d not be gi ven a narrow or t ec hn i ca l m eani ng for purpo se s of § 10 01 . ” B ry son v . U ni t ed S t at es , 39 6 U . S . 64 , 70 , 90 S . C t . 35 5, 35 9, 24 L . E d. 2d 26 4 (19 69 ). T he C ou rt concl ud ed that“ [a ] st atut ory bas i s f or an agency’ s r equestfor i nform at i on prov i des j ur i s di c t i on e nough t o puni s h f r audul e nts t a t e m e nt s unde r§ 1001. ” I d. a t71, 90 S . C t . a t359. M or e r e c e nt l y , i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odge r s , 466 U . S . 475, 479, 10 4 S . C t . 19 42 , 19 46 , 80 L . E d. 2d 49 2 (19 84 ), the C ou rtexpl ai ned thatagency4

j ur i s di c t i on “ c ove r s a l l m a tt e r s c onf i de d t o the author i tyof

[ af e de r a l ] a ge nc yor d e p a rtm e n t . . . . A d e p a rtm e n t o ra g e n c yh a s ju r is d ic tio n , in th is s e n s e , w h e n it has pow ert o exerci se autho ri ty i n a part i cul arsi tuat i on . ” W e have hel d thata f

al se st at em enti s m at er i al i f i t“ has anatural t endency to in f lu e n c e o rb e c ap ab le o f

in f lu e n c in g th e g o v e rn m e n t a g e n c yo rd e p a rtm e n t in qu es t i on . ” L aw son, 80 9 F . 2d at15 20 . W e have not ed thatproo f of a ctual in f lu e n c e is n o t r e q u ir e d . I d . T he r e c or d he r e de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe F B I w a s l e gi t i m a t e l yi nve s t i ga t i ng po t ent i al vi ol at i on s of the H ob bs A ct , 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 1, com m i tt ed by a l ocal d is tr ic t a tto rn e y b a s e d o n h is a lle g e d e x to rtio n o f m o n e yf r o m c r im in a l d e f

e n d a n ts w i th reg ard t o p l ea ag reem en tn eg o t i at i o n s, p u rsu an tt o i t s st atu t o ry au th o ri ty, w h e n it in te rv ie w e d R ic h e y . T h u s , th e F B I h a d as ta tu to ryb a s is u p o n w h ic h to in q u ir e in f

o rm a tio n f

r o m R ic h e y , e s tab lis h in g § 1 0 0 1 ’s ju r is d ic tio n a l e le m e n t. F u rth e r , th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t R ic h e ym a d e o n e o rm o r e f a ls e s ta te m e n ts to the F B I dur i ng i t s i nve s t i ga t i on. A l though hi s f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s appa r e nt l ydi d not im p e d e th e F B I ’s in v e s tig a tio n , th e yc o u ldh a v e a f f e c te d th e F B I ’s d e c is io n to c o n tin u e in v e s tig a tio n o rp r o s e c u tio n o f th e m a tte r . T h e r e f

o r e , th e f a ls e s ta te m e n ts w e r e m a t e r i a l . A c c or di ngl y , R i c he y ’ s c onduc tw a s pr os e c ut abl e unde r§ 1001, a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y de ni e d R i c he y ’ s m ot i ons t o qua s h the i ndi c tm e nta nd f or5

an e w tr ia l o n th is b a s is . I I . W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s appl i c a t i on of j udi c i a l e s t oppe l f

orabus e of di sc re t i on . B urnes v. P em co A er op l ex, Inc. , 29 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 02 ).

“ J udi c i a l e s t oppe l ba r s apa rtyf r om a s s e rt i ng apos i t i on i n al e ga l pr oc e e di ng thati s i ncon si st entw i th i t s posi t i on i n a previ ou s, re l at ed proceedi ng . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . C a m p a , 4 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 5 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . I n d e te rm in in g w h e th e rto ap p lyth e d o c tr in e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld c o n s id e r : ( 1 ) w h e th e rth e a lle g e d ly i ncon si st entpo si t i on w as m ade und eroath i n a pri or proceedi ng ; and (2) w hether the i nc ons i s t e nc y w a s c a l c ul a t e d t o m a ke am oc ke ryof the j udi c i a l s y s t e m . I d. ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . A f te rr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d , r e a d in g th e p a rtie s ’ b r ie f s , a n d h a v in g th e b e n e f

it of oral ar gu m ent , w e c on cl ud e thatA l abam a’ s a cc ept ance of R i chey ’ s c l i ent ’ s pl ea a gr e e m e nt , ba s e d on a l l e ge dl y i m pr ope rne got i a t i ons , di d notj udi c i a l l ye s t op the f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t f

r o m p r o s e c u tin g R ic h e yf o rth e f a ls e s ta te m e n ts h e m a d e to the fe dera l go vernm entre gardi ng the pl eanego t i at i on s. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm R ic h e y ’s c o n v ic tio n . A FFI R M ED .