[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 12456 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:13

- cr - 80140

- DTKH

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus HENRY ALBERT SCHALLER, II, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( January 15, 2015 ) Before WILLIAM PRYOR , JORDAN and JILL P RYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-12456 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 1 of 42 Henry Albert Schaller , II , appeals his convictions for f our counts of making a false representation that he had never been convicted of a misdemeanor on his applications for a m edical c ertificate , 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)( 2) , and one count of knowingly and willfully making a false representation that his medical certificate had never been denied, suspended, and revoked, id. Schaller argues that the district court erred by instructing the jury about the definition of “ petty of fense ” and the classification of federal crimes and that the evidence i s insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm. The district court did not err in its instructi o n s to the jury. The government argued that Schaller had been convicted of t wo misde meanors, but Schaller testified that he had been convicted of petty offenses. To aid the jury, t he district
court provided oral and written instructions about the characteristics of a pe tty offense, a misdemeanor , and a felony and about the burden of proof. Th os e instruction s de fined accurately the types of offenses and a ided the jury in determining whether Schaller knew that his prior convictions were misdemeanors
and whether he willfully failed to disclose th os e convictions on his applications

. See United States v. Mintmire , 507 F.3d 1273, 1293 (11 th Cir. 2007). T he district
court informe d the jury of the fact that Schaller had been co nvicted of
misdemeanor s, but that statement of fact did not suggest that Schaller’s testimony was incredible . The dis trict court instructed the jury that “[t]he government had . . .

Case: 14-12456 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 2 of 43 to prove that [Schaller’s] statement was false

. . . and that [he] knew it was false when” he filed his applications; Schaller had to act “purposefully with the intent to mislead the Governme nt”; if Schaller thought that he “was not convicted of a misdemeanor offense” then he was “not guilty of [making a false statement ] because [that] crime require[d] the Government to prove that Mr. Schaller acted willfully and knew that his statement was fa lse”; “the Government [had] the burden of proving . . . that Mr. Schaller knew he had been convicted of a misdemeanor offense and he purposefully checked the box no”; and if “Schaller did not understand that he had been convicted of a misdemeanor offense, he [was] not guilty

. ” Ample evidence also supports Schaller’s convictions for making false statements. Schaller argues that he did not falsely den y being convicted of
misdemeanor s, but the evidence supports the contrary finding of the jury

. We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence and view it in the light most favorable to the government. Mintmire , 507 F.3d at 12 8 9

. Although Schaller’s judgment and amended judgment of conviction stated that they were “[f]or a Petty Offense,” Schaller referred to his prior convictions as misdemeanors d uring his interview with federal agents and during a later conversation that he had with his daughter. Moreover , Schaller’s information charged him with “ class A misdemeanor [ s ]” ; Schaller acknowledged in his written plea agreement that he

Case: 14-12456 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 3 of 44 “underst[oo]d[] and agree[d] that [his] offenses . . . [were] class A misdemeanors” ; and both the district court and defense counsel described Schaller ’s crimes as
misdemeanors during his change of plea hearing. Schaller also argues that the government failed to prove that his false statements were material, but federal agents testified that the Administration relied on Schaller’s false representations to
issue his medical certificates and that the Administration would have investiga ted Schaller’s mental state had he provided truthful responses in his applications. Schaller’s false responses were material because they “impair[ed] or prevent[ed] the functioning” of the Administration. See United States v. Boffil

- Rivera , 607 F.3d 736, 7 41 (11 th Cir. 2010). Schaller testified that he was unaware that his statements were false or material, but the jury was entitled to disbelieve Schaller and treat his testimony as substantive evidence of his guilt. See United States v.
Brown , 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995)
We AFFIRM Schaller’s convictions. Case: 14-12456 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 4 of 4