Opinion ID: 3155932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: C.F./M.V. Passport (Count 2)

Text: Churchwell challenges his conviction for aiding and abetting the making of a false passport application by alleging that there was insufficient evidence. The record reveals that Churchwell’s conviction can be upheld because he accepted and certified as true the C.F./M.V. passport application containing a false signature, even though he knew that the purported father was not present and did not in fact sign the passport application to give his consent. The Government introduced sufficient evidence to establish the substantive elements of the offense. To obtain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1542, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “willfully and knowingly ma[de] any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1542; United States v. Reyes-Ochoa, 503 F. App’x 268, 269 (5th Cir. 2012). In order for a parent to obtain a passport for a child under age 16, both parents must apply in person at the passport agency. See 22 C.F.R. § 51.28(a)(2). Alternatively, the application may be executed by only one of the parents if that parent shows a notarized statement from the absent parent consenting to the issuance of the passport. See id. § 51.28(a)(3)(i). When a parent, or another individual, signs a passport application in place of the second parent, the signing individual has willfully and knowingly made a false statement on the face of the passport application. 9 Evidence at trial conclusively showed that either Jacquelyn or 9 See United States v. Baum, 380 F. Supp. 2d 187, 187–204 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (holding that the defendant, who did not have sole custody of her child and forged her ex–husband’s signature on the child’s passport application, made a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542). 6 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 Brown made false statements on the child’s passport application when one of the two signed falsely for Merlin and provided M.V.’s birth certificate and C.F.’s photo as a part of the C.F. passport application. While we have held that a defendant may be criminally liable for making a false statement on a passport application, our case law has not yet addressed the issue in this case: whether a government agent may be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting where he accepts or certifies as true another’s passport application that he knew contained false statements. Addressing an issue of first impression, we hold that the record supports the district court’s finding of Churchwell’s guilt. As a general rule, a defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting if he “knowingly associated himself with and participated in the criminal venture.” 18 U.S.C. § 2; United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 873 (4th Cir. 1996). In United States v. Aifang Ye, the Ninth Circuit upheld a conviction of aiding and abetting where the defendant assisted her brother-inlaw, Zhenyan, who signed her child’s passport application as the child’s father. See 792 F.3d 1164, 1165–67 (9th Cir. 2015). Zhenyan used his brother’s name and passport as identification. Id. at 1166. The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting passport fraud because she agreed to sign and submit a false application with knowledge of her brother-in-law’s false signature. Id. Other circuits have considered whether aiding and abetting includes certifying and accepting false statements. For example, in United States v. Dunne, the Tenth Circuit suggested that a defendant may be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting where he certified and accepted false information in an audit report and other financial statements in documents submitted to the United States government. See 324 F.3d 1158, 1162–64 (10th Cir. 2003). It is undisputed that Churchwell participated in the criminal venture. We now address whether he knowingly associated himself with this venture. 7 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 Churchwell’s argument that his negligence does not constitute aiding and abetting is unavailing. He acknowledges that the passport agency’s Foreign Affairs Manual required both parents to be present in order for a minor child to obtain a passport, that Merlin was not present, and that either Jacquelyn or Brown signed on his behalf. Churchwell points out, however, that there was no evidence establishing that he knew that the passport application was fraudulent. The Government counters that Churchwell was aware of the passport agency procedure 10 and intentionally bypassed its two-parent consent requirement. The Government thus contends that Churchwell made a false statement by accepting and adjudicating the application despite Merlin’s absence. In light of the record, we affirm the verdict. Here, Churchwell, too, signed the passport application knowing of a false signature made by someone other than the child’s father. He contends that simply disregarding the passport agency’s policy and his mere negligence precludes him from conviction because he did not know that the information on the application was false or that Merlin had not given his wife permission to sign on his behalf. This argument is of no moment because his signature was a certification of the application’s contents as true. By certifying the application, Churchwell acknowledged that both the father and mother were present even after he witnessed someone other than Merlin sign the application. Churchwell’s conduct, coupled with his training to detect suspicious behavior, was sufficient to show a full understanding of the content of the documents he signed. In fact, criminal culpability is particularly clear here because the false statements were made in Churchwell’s presence during his service as a government official executing his official duties, thereby 10 The Government contends that this is a “two-parent consent law.” See Pub. L. No. 106-113, Title II, § 236, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999); 22 C.F.R. § 51.28. 8 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 becoming a party to passport fraud. This act alone is sufficient to impose criminal liability and his argument does not stand. Accordingly, a review of the record shows that a reasonable jury was free to reject Churchwell’s argument and find him guilty of aiding and abetting passport fraud.