Opinion ID: 150668
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count 5 Causing False Statements to Be Made in SL 2745

Text: Count 5 of the indictment charged Siemaszko with knowingly and willfully caus[ing] others to make and use a false writing, that is, [SL 2745], that contained... material statements, which were fraudulent, to the NRC in violation of §§ 1001 and 2. The allegedly false statement was that `[d]uring 10RFO, in spring of 1996, the entire head was visible so 100% of the CRDM nozzles were inspected with the exception of four nozzles in the center of the head,' whereas, as defendants then well knew, many more than the center four nozzles were not inspected. While the evidence supporting this count is more circumstantial than the evidence supporting counts 1 and 2, there was sufficient evidence presented to demonstrate that Siemaszko caused Davis-Besse to submit this false statement to the NRC. Siemaszko argues that no evidence indicates that he had the requisite intent to deceive the government through this statement in SL 2745. He argues, and the record supports his assertion, that he had no direct role in preparing this document and that Byrd, who prepared the letter, did not contact him for information during the preparation. However, Byrd testified that in formulating his risk analysis, he based his assumption that all of the nozzles were free of stress cracks in 1996 on the information provided in Siemaszko's nozzle inspection table. Based on Byrd's testimony and the evidence presented with respect to Siemaszko's role in preparing the nozzle inspection table, a jury could convict Siemaszko on count 5. Indeed, that the jury convicted Siemaszko on counts involving SLs 2731, 2735, and 2745, but not on counts involving SLs 2741 and 2744, is consistent with this conclusion. Siemaszko also argues that the panel must reverse his conviction on this count because it is multiplicitous. In support, he cites United States v. Olsowy, 836 F.2d 439, 443 (9th Cir.1987), which held that where identical false statements, in either oral or written form, are made in response to identical questions, the declarant may be convicted only once. Siemaszko argues that the statement on which this conviction is based is the nozzle inspection table, which also formed the basis of his conviction on count 2. Although the information in the table formed the basis of Byrd's analysis in SL 2745, SL 2745 was not submitted in response to identical questions. In fact, the Olsowy court distinguished cases like Siemaszko's by specifically stating that it ha[d] previously upheld multiple counts under section 1001 for submitting separate documents at the same time and multiple convictions for submitting subsequent documents summarizing earlier documents. Id. at 443 n. 4 (citations omitted). Thus, although Siemaszko's involvement in preparing SL 2745 was considerably less direct than his involvement in formulating the statements and documents made in counts 1 and 2, there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty of count 5 beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore affirm his conviction on this count.