Opinion ID: 611949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of Count Eleven.

Text: 9 Campbell argues that Count Eleven of the superseding indictment was insufficient because it did not properly charge a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed de novo. United States v. Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502, 1516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 61 U.S.L.W. 3582 (U.S. Feb. 22, 1993) (Nos. 92-6409, 92-6802). Section 1001 provides that 10 Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or documents knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 11 Count Eleven of the superseding indictment charged Campbell with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001, alleging that 12 [o]n or about December 28, 1984, in the City of Oakland, State and Northern District of California, 13 REYNARD CAMPBELL, 14 defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations of a material fact in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service, an agency of the United States, to wit, the presentation of a schedule of payments by Cynthia J. Johnson, in support of exemptions to Tax Auditor Carol Ann Quigley, whereas, he then and there well knew that Cynthia J. Johnson had not made any such payments. 15 Campbell's contention is two-fold: Count Eleven did not (1) adequately apprise him of the charges against which he had to defend himself, or (2) state the charges against him with sufficient clarity to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense. 2 16 An indictment must be 'read as a whole' and construed according to common sense. Dischner, 974 F.2d at 1518 (quoting United States v. Buckley, 689 F.2d 893, 899 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1086 (1983)). It is sufficient if it tracks the words of the statute charging the offense ... [and its] words unambiguously set forth all elements necessary to constitute the offense.'  United States v. Fitzgerald, 882 F.2d 397, 399 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Givens, 767 F.2d 574, 584 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 953 (1985)). 17 Campbell's adequacy argument fails because § 1001, despite the fact that it enumerat[es] several different types of fraudulent conduct ..., did not create separate and distinct offenses. United States v. UCO Oil Co., 546 F.2d 833, 838 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 (1977). In UCO Oil, defendants argued that each of the § 1001 counts in the indictment filed against them charged both the making of false writings and the falsification and concealment of material facts. Id. at 835. This court rejected a duplicity argument, reasoning that because § 1001 defines but a single offense, it [is] proper to charge the different means, denounced disjunctively in the statute, conjunctively in each count of the indictment. Id. at 838. 18 Campbell's insufficiency argument similarly fails. Count Eleven tracks the language of § 1001 and contains the necessary elements of the crime charged. See United States v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1542 (9th Cir.1991). It is also stated clearly enough to bar any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. UCO Oil, 546 F.2d at 838 (Proof of any one of the allegations will sustain a conviction, but a judgment of guilty will bar any further prosecution with respect to any of the prohibited means embraced within the count.) (citation omitted). That the indictment might have been more precisely drawn ... would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that reversible error has been committed. United States v. Guthartz, 573 F.2d 225, 227 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 564 (1978). Measuring the sufficiency of the superseding indictment here by practical, not technical, considerations, id., we reject Campbell's insufficiency argument. 19