Opinion ID: 77212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Allegations of the Indictment (Sumbodo)

Text: 111 Sumbodo alleges that Section 1(B) of Count One of the indictment is so unintelligible that it failed to notify him of the offense charged. This section reads that Sumbodo and his co-defendants conspired to commit the following offenses: 112 B. To willfully, knowingly and with intent to deceive the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner) of his true identity and the identity of another person, furnish and cause to be furnished false information to the Commissioner in connection with the establishment and maintenance of the records provided for in Section 405(c)(2) to Title 42, namely by applying for Social Security numbers using fraudulent immigration documents, in violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section 408(a)(6). 113 Sumbodo notes that pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), an indictment must contain a plain, concise and definite statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Moreover, it must set forth the elements of the offense in a manner which fairly informs the defendant of the charges against him and enables him to enter a plea which will bar prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775, 782 (11th Cir.1989). Sumbodo contends that because the allegation in Section 1(B) makes no sense . . . [and] is incoherent, it fails to allege a criminal offense or to advise him of the substance of the charge. 114 The Government notes that this Court has held, If an indictment specifically refers to the statute on which the charge was based, the reference to the statutory language adequately informs the defendant of the charge. United States v. Fern, 155 F.3d 1318, 1325 (11th Cir.1998). Moreover, the constitutional standard is fulfilled by an indictment that tracks the wording of the statute, as long as the language sets forth the essential elements of the crime. United States v. Critzer, 951 F.2d 306, 308 (11th Cir.1992) (citation omitted). The Government contends that the relevant portion of the indictment basically tracked the statutory language of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(6). 115 A review of § 408(a)(6) reveals that the relevant portion of the indictment does track the language of § 408(a)(6). Basically, the indictment reads that Sumbodo is charged with conspiring to deceive the Commissioner by applying for Social Security numbers using fraudulent immigration documents. Sumbodo claims that this language in incoherent and unintelligible, but he does not explain how it is incoherent or unintelligible. We find no error.