Source: http://openjurist.org/661/f2d/404/united-states-v-anderez
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 01:16:22
Document Index: 167423157

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1001', '§ 1101', '§ 1052', '§ 1001', '§ 1001', '§ 645', '§ 408', '§ 1001', '§ 1101', '§ 1001', '§ 1101', '§ 1001', '§ 1101']

661 F2d 404 United States v. Anderez | OpenJurist
661 F. 2d 404 - United States v. Anderez HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 661 F.2d.
661 F2d 404 United States v. Anderez 661 F.2d 404
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Rolando ANDEREZ, Defendant-Appellee.
A jury convicted Anderez on both counts of the indictment. The district court, however, entered a judgment of acquittal on the felony count charging Anderez under the false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. See United States v. Anderez, 502 F.Supp. 67 (S.D.Fla.1980). The district court concluded that because Congress had determined to punish Anderez' conduct as a misdemeanor under 31 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1058, it did not intend to create felony liability for the same conduct under the older, more general section 1001. The district court stated that there was nothing in the legislative history to indicate congressional intent to allow overlapping punishment under the different statutes. The court also stated that, because Congress had provided for multiple punishment in several other instances by explicitly incorporating the false statements statute into the newer laws, Title 31 would have specifically provided for cumulative penalties under that statute had Congress intended to allow double punishment. On appeal the government contends that the district court incorrectly concluded that Anderez could not be convicted under both counts. We agree and accordingly reverse the judgment of the district court.
* In examining the scope of the different statutes under which Anderez was charged, the district court found the legislative history to be ambiguous concerning the question of multiple penalties. Consequently, it applied the rule of lenity to construe the Reporting Act as having supplanted the provisions of section 1001. In doing so, the court ignored a fundamental tenet of statutory construction. Our starting point in interpreting statutes must be the language of the statutes themselves. Absent "clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Albernaz v. United States, 449 U.S. ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1141, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) (quoting Consumers Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 109, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980)). Anderez was charged with two separate offenses contained in two distinct acts. Each provision is unambiguous on its face and imposes punishment for the violation of its distinct terms. There is nothing in either provision to suggest that its penal terms must be exclusive. Indeed, the Reporting Act suggests that Congress intended that the provisions of the false statements statute serve to complement the penal provisions of the Reporting Act. Title 31 U.S.C. § 1052(k) makes it clear that the failure to report currency may also result in a violation of the false statements statute:
Given the clarity with which Congress spoke, only the starkest manifestation of contrary intent in the legislative history of the two acts would lead us to find that sections 1101 and 1058 are the sole source of punishment for Anderez' conduct. See Albernaz v. United States, 449 U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1143. That clear manifestation is absent from the legislative record. Section 1001 is a broad statute designed to reach material misrepresentations of any sort that would pervert the authorized functions of government. There is nothing to suggest that the reach of section 1001 should be tempered by the existence of other statutes. See United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 93, 61 S.Ct. 518, 522, 85 L.Ed. 598 (1941). Similarly, the legislative history of the Reporting Act fails to disclose any intent to make the penal provisions of the Act exclusive. The district court makes much of a short exchange between Senator Proxmire and a former United States Attorney during the hearings on the Reporting Act.7 The cited passage, however, merely states that sections 1101 and 1058 will aid in controlling illegal currency shipments. There is nothing to suggest that the Reporting Act must necessarily be the sole basis for prosecuting persons who mislead customs inspectors. Indeed, throughout the legislative history there is nothing to suggest that a violation of the Reporting Act cannot also amount to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.8
The district court also suggests that it would be illogical for Congress to provide a specific misdemeanor penalty for a violation of the Reporting Act, yet inevitably allow for felony punishment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. This conclusion is contrary to precedent as well as flawed in logic. First, courts have consistently read section 1001 broadly and allowed for prosecution under its terms even when a defendant could have been prosecuted under a more specific misdemeanor provision with lesser penalties. See United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 61 S.Ct. 518, 85 L.Ed. 598 (felony prosecution under section 1001 not precluded by Hot Oil Act reporting provision providing for less severe penalty); United States v. Carter, 526 F.2d 1276 (5th Cir. 1976) (heavier penalties of section 1001 may be imposed for conduct also punishable under 15 U.S.C. § 645(a)); United States v. Chakmakis, 449 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1971) (section 1001 may be imposed instead of misdemeanor provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 408(c)).9 Second, it is quite logical for Congress to have decided that section 1001 should supplement the Reporting Act provisions on occasion. Each statute is aimed at a slightly different form of misconduct lying to a federal officer is not the same as failing to file a currency report and Congress could easily have determined that two provisions should operate independently to chill certain conduct even if they overlapped in many instances.
In an effort to avoid the plain language of the statutes as well as an unsympathetic legislative history Anderez invokes two maxims of criminal law construction. Those shibboleths are unavailing here. The first, the proposition that specific statutes must be given precedence over general ones, is refuted by the broad construction this court and others have given section 1001. See, e. g., United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 61 S.Ct. 518, 85 L.Ed. 598; United States v. Carter, 526 F.2d 1276; United States v. Chakmakis, 449 F.2d 315. The second, the rule of lenity,10 is inappropriate in cases where there is no statutory ambiguity to resolve. See, e. g., Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212, 217, 96 S.Ct. 498, 501, 46 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976). Congress has spoken clearly in this case, and when "Congress has manifested its intention, (the courts) may not manufacture ambiguity in order to defeat that intent." United States v. Davis, 656 F.2d 153, 158 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 2252, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980)). While some may disagree with the decision to allow punishment for orally lying to a government official as well as for not complying with customs regulations, this is the sort of policy dispute that must be left in the legislative arena. Absent constitutional infirmities in the sentencing provision of these two acts11 our court must enforce Congress' intent to punish each offense independently.12 We hold that Anderez may be convicted under both 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 31 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1058.13
The exculpatory no doctrine developed because this court believed that Congress intended section 1001 to punish only positive false statements that would pervert governmental functions. See Paternostro v. United States, 311 F.2d 298, 301-05 (5th Cir. 1962). In addition, this court was motivated by a "latent distaste for an application of the statute that is uncomfortably close to the Fifth Amendment." United States v. Lambert, 501 F.2d 943, 946 n.4 (5th Cir. 1974). Consequently, we have held that section 1001 may not be used to punish people who make negative false statements to government investigators in an effort to exculpate themselves from an act they believe to be illegal. This doctrine was applied to the fact pattern present in this case in Schnaiderman and Granda. In both of those cases we held that, unless the individual knows it is permissible to bring more than $5,000 into the country, a lie to customs agents to avoid expected retribution under currency laws will not lead to section 1001 punishment. See also United States v. Warren, 612 F.2d 887, 889-90 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 956, 100 S.Ct. 2928, 64 L.Ed.2d 815 (1980). Unless customs officials disabuse travelers of the belief that bringing currency into the country is illegal, solicitude for fifth amendment values prevents us from attaching section 1001 liability to this sort of conduct. E. g., United States v. Schnaiderman, 568 F.2d at 1214 & n.12.
United States v. Anderez, 502 F.Supp. 67, 70 (S.D.Fla.1980) (emphasis by district court omitted).
See also United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2204, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979):
This Court has long recognized that when an act violates more than one criminal statute, the Government may prosecute under either so long as it does not discriminate against any class of defendants. See United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 U.S. 43, 45-46, 73 S.Ct. 77, 79, 97 L.Ed. 61 (1952); Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 294, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 1163, 97 L.Ed. 1607 (1953) (Clark, J., concurring) (opinion joined by five Members of the Court); Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456, 82 S.Ct. 501, 505, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962); SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U.S. 453, 468, 89 S.Ct. 564, 572, 21 L.Ed.2d 668 (1969); United States v. Naftalin (441 U.S. 768, 777, 99 S.Ct. 2077, 2084, 60 L.Ed.2d 624 (1979)).
Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 178, 79 S.Ct. 209, 214, 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958), quoted in United States v. Davis, 656 F.2d 153, 158 (5th Cir. 1981); see Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 112, 99 S.Ct. 2190, 2197, 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979).
Anderez does not argue that punishment under the false statements statute and the Reporting Act would violate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment. U.S.Const. amend. V. That argument has been foreclosed by two recent decisions of the Supreme Court. See Albernaz v. United States, 449 U.S. ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1145, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981); Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 688-89, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 1436-1437, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980)
There is no need to apply the test of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), in this case because it is clear that Congress intended to punish two separate offenses even though they may both result from the same transaction. Were we to apply Blockburger, however, we would reach the same result. In that case the Supreme Court stated:
Our decision is in accord with the conclusions reached by another panel of this court and by the ninth circuit. Although neither court confronted the issue squarely, each upheld convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 31 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1058. See United States v. Satterfield, 644 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moore, 638 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1980). The second circuit also apparently allows prosecution under both statutes. In United States v. Gomez Londono, 553 F.2d 805 (2d Cir. 1977), that court reversed the district court's suppression order in a case where the defendant had been charged under both the Reporting Act and the false statements statute, but left the indictment intact. In an unreported opinion the second circuit subsequently affirmed the defendant's conviction. United States v. Gomez Londono, 580 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1978); see United States v. Pereira, 463 F.Supp. 481 (E.D.N.Y.1978) (district court denied motion to dismiss indictment charging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 31 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1058)