TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. John Henry Godwin

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Henry GODWIN, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Godwin, 566 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 27, 1978
Docket
No. 77-5246
Judges
Thornberry, Roney, Hill
Citations
566 F.2d 9751978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12860

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted on thirty-seven counts of submitting false time sheets to a United States Marshal, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 .

1

After review of the entire record, we are of the opinion that there has been no error, and affirm.

The appellant was employed by the United States Marshal’s Service, guarding hospitalized prisoners. He supervised other guards, and prepared both his and their time sheets. The government’s evidence showed that on many occasions he filled out time sheets for periods when he and other guards were not in fact working, and submitted them to the United States Marshal’s office. He and other guards were paid according to these submissions, and he received kickbacks from other guards.

On appeal, as at trial, the appellant denies any intent to defraud the government, and further asserts that the court’s failure to so charge the jury was error.

In United States v. Lange, 528 F.2d 1280, 1287 (5 Cir. 1976) we stated the five elements necessary to sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 : (1) a statement, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) specific intent, and (5) agency jurisdiction.

Intent to deceive and intent to defraud are not synonymous. Deceive is to cause to believe the false or to mislead. Defraud is to deprive of some right, interest or property by deceit. Since the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is to protect the government against those who would cheat or mislead it in the administration of its programs, a charge that includes specific intent to deceive along with the other elements mentioned above comports with 18 U.S.C. § 1001 .

United States v. Johnson, 284 F.Supp. 273 (W.D.Mo.1968), aff’d, 410 F.2d 38 (8 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 822 , 90 S.Ct. 63 , 24 L.Ed.2d 72 (1969). 18 U.S.C. § 1001 does not require that the government prove a specific intent to defraud. Accordingly, since the charge in the instant case was comprised of all of the necessary elements, there is no error.

We have reviewed the other issues raised, and they are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

1

. 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 document 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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • ("Intent to deceive and intent to defraud are not synonymous. Deceive is to cause to believe the false or to mislead. Defraud is to deprive of some right, interest or property by deceit")

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1979: 11980: 21984: 11985: 11987: 21988: 11992: 11994: 11996: 11997: 12006: 22008: 12015: 12021: 12023: 22024: 119792026peak 1980 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Joseph Lichenstein and Leo Bella610 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir. 1980)
  2. United States v. Rafael Corsino812 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987)
  3. United States v. Gary Ranum96 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 1996)
  4. United States v. Weingarden468 F. Supp. 410 (E.D. Mich. 1979)
  5. United States v. Yermian468 U.S. 63 (1984)
  6. United States v. George William Blood (04-5101) and Stephen L. Crittenden (04-5261)435 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006)

Most recent

  1. State of Iowa v. Sydney Leiann SlaughterNo. 22-0892 (Iowa Feb. 23, 2024)
  2. United States v. Greenlaw84 F.4th 325 (5th Cir. 2023)
  3. United States v. Greenlaw76 F.4th 304 (5th Cir. 2023)
  4. United States v. Diana Yates16 F.4th 256 (9th Cir. 2021)
  5. State of Iowa v. John Robert Hoyman863 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2015)
  6. United States v. Kowal527 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2008)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Lange, 528 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1976) 49
Johnson v. United States, 410 F.2d 38 (8th Cir. 1969) 24
United States v. Johnson, 284 F. Supp. 273 (W.D. Mo. 1968) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list