Opinion ID: 45022
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Perjury (Count 47)

Text: DeAngelis argues that the false statement to the pretrial services officer was not material because it did not affect his bond determination. The perjury statute proscribes “willfully subscrib[ing] as true any material matter . . . not believe[d] to be true” in “any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury.” 18 U.S.C. § 1621(2). A statement is material if it is “capable of influencing the tribunal on the issue before it.” United States v. Forrest, 623 F.2d 1107, 1112 (5th Cir. 1978). 10 This argument fails. At trial, government witnesses testified that the false report of DeAngelis’s assets could influence the court’s decision on the measure of fine or restitution to impose. The evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the false statement, which DeAngelis subscribed as true and executed under penalty of perjury, was material.