Opinion ID: 442950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenge to Count II of the Indictment

Text: 18 Palzer argues that Count II of the indictment cannot support a criminal conviction because the form that he failed to fill out--Customs Form 4790--is an administrative rule that was improperly promulgated, not published, and therefore void. 14 Compare United States v. $200,000 in United States Currency, 590 F.Supp. 866 (S.D.Fla.1984) (holding that Form 4790 is a rule that requires notice and comment prior to adoption and publication in the Federal Register before it can support a forfeiture action based on an individual's failure to fill out the form), with United States v. Lagasse, No. 83-61-1 (D.Vt. June 18, 1984) (holding that Form 4790 is not an administrative rule but is merely incidental to the statute and regulations and therefore false statements on the form can lead to criminal prosecution). We reject this argument without considering Palzer's challenge to the form, 15 because we conclude that the validity of Count II of the indictment and the offense charged therein does not implicate the propriety of the form. Count II of the indictment states: 19 On or about August 4, 1982, at Miami, Dade County, within the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, Lewis Palzer, did knowingly and willfully transport and caused to be transported from Grand Cayman Island, Cayman Islands, to Miami, Dade County, Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), an amount of U.S. currency in excess of $5,000, the defendant having failed to file U.S. Government Form 4790, Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments, in connection with the above transportation; in violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 1101(a)(1)(B) and 1058; 31 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 103.23 & 103.49(a). 20 The general principles for interpreting the sufficiency of an indictment were stated comprehensively in United States v. Goodman, 605 F.2d 870 (5th Cir.1979): 21 Our prior cases indicate that an indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2907, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). 22 See also United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92 (1953); Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861 (1932). 23 Specificity does not determine the sufficiency of an indictment. United States v. Guthartz, 573 F.2d 225, 227 (5 Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 864, 99 S.Ct. 187, 58 L.Ed.2d 173 (1978). Its [an indictment's] validity is determined by practical, not technical, considerations. United States v. Guthartz, supra, at 227; United States v. London, 550 F.2d 206 (5 Cir.1977); United States v. Markham, 537 F.2d 187 (5 Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1041, 97 S.Ct. 739, 50 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). 24 Id. at 885. Applying these principles to Count II of Palzer's indictment, we find that the indictment was sufficient to charge Palzer with a criminal offense. 25 Section 103.23(a), 31 C.F.R., provides in pertinent part: 26 Each person who physically transports, mails, or ships ... currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $5,000 on any one occasion ... into the United States from any place outside the United States, shall make a report thereof. 27 Section 103.25(b), 31 C.F.R., fleshes out the reporting requirement as follows: 28 Reports required to be filed by Sec. 103.23(a) shall be filed at the time of entry into the United States ... with the Customs officer in charge at any Customs port of entry .... on forms to be proscribed by the Secretary and all information called for in such forms shall be furnished. 29 Finally, the criminal penalties relevant to the reporting requirements are found in 31 C.F.R. Sec. 103.49(a), which provides: 30 Any person who willfully violates any provision of this part may, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 31 By express reference in Count II of the indictment, the government charged Palzer with violating the provisions contained in this regulatory scheme. 16 32 The substance of the indictment in this case charges Palzer with willfully failing to report the fact that he was bringing more than $5,000 in currency into the country. Nothing in the content of Form 4790, which Palzer now challenges, is implicated in the offense charged in the indictment, i.e., the willful failure to report the fact that he was bringing in more than $5,000. Section 103.23(a), 31 C.F.R., clearly informed Palzer of the requirement to report the fact that he was carrying more than $5,000 in currency. Section 103.25(b), 31 C.F.R., reiterates the reporting requirement, and specifies the time, place, and manner in which the report is to be made. Palzer does not, and could not, argue that these regulations were improperly promulgated or not published. 17 If the government is able to show that Palzer willfully failed to report the fact that he was carrying more than $5,000, it could obtain a valid conviction directly under the regulatory scheme expressly referred to in the indictment. 31 C.F.R. Sec. 103.49(a). 18 33 We conclude that the reference in the indictment to Form 4790, which we have found to be irrelevant to the crime charged therein, was surplusage. As we noted previously, specificity does not determine the sufficiency of an indictment. The Supreme Court held long ago in Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 602, 47 S.Ct. 531, 534, 71 L.Ed. 793 (1926), that reference in an indictment to an element unnecessary to definition of a crime does not require the government to prove that element. Accord United States v. Goodman, 605 F.2d at 886-87; United States v. Greene, 497 F.2d 1068 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 909, 95 S.Ct. 829, 42 L.Ed.2d 839 (1975). In the instant case, the government did not need to prove that Palzer failed to fill out Form 4790 in order to obtain a conviction under the regulatory scheme charged in the indictment. Thus, Palzer's failure to fill out a particular form, i.e., is not a necessary element of the offense charged in this case. 34 Our practical view of Count II of the indictment convinces us that it sufficiently apprised Palzer of the elements of the offense charged and fairly informed him of the charge that he must defend--that is, a willful failure to report to the government the fact that he was carrying more than $5,000 into the country. We therefore reject his argument on appeal that the government cannot validly subject him to retrial under Count II of the instant indictment. 19