Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/53/332/498118/
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 15:26:29
Document Index: 581025305

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1001', '§1546', '§1001', '§1001', '§1001', '§3742']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Enoma Solomon Eribo Defendant-appellant, 53 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 1995) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 1995 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Enoma Solomon Eribo Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Enoma Solomon Eribo Defendant-appellant, 53 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 1995)
Defendant Enoma S. Eribo, was indicted by the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. A five count superseding indictment was filed charging defendant on counts one and five with violating 18 U.S.C. §1001, making false statement to the Social Security Administration (SSA); on counts two and three with violating 18 U.S.C. §1546(b) (3), making false statements on an employment eligibility form; and, count four charged defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. §1001, making false statements to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Defendant pleaded not guilty. After a trial by jury, defendant was found guilty on all counts. Defendant was sentenced to six months imprisonment followed by a period of two years supervised release. Defendant filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
Defendant contends that the evidence against him was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction. Specifically, defendant argues that the issue of the two year residency requirement is confusing and he gave the INS "reasonable and plausible" explanations why he believed he was entitled to a waiver of his foreign residency requirement. It should be noted that defendant's argument is limited to his convictions under 18 U.S.C. §1001.
A violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001 for the making of a false statement or representation requires: (1) the making of a statement; (2) the falsity of such statements; (3) knowledge of the falsity of such statement; (4) relevance of such statement to the functioning of a federal department or agency; and (5) that the false statement was material.
This court has consistently held that where the guideline range was properly computed, the district court was aware of its discretion to depart, and the sentence imposed was not in violation of the law or based on an incorrect application of the Guidelines, failure to depart is not cognizable on appeal. United States v. Davis, 919 F.2d 1181, 1187 (6th Cir. 1990), citing 18 U.S.C. §3742(a).