United States v. Abrahem
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8059
5th Cir.2012Background
- Abrahem was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) for falsely claiming to be Major Hasan's lawyer to DoD security at BAMC on Jan 6, 2010.
- He was not a lawyer and did not represent Hasan; BAMC protocol forbade entry without CID clearance.
- Security confronted Abrahem; he was escorted away after identifying himself and making statements.
- Witnesses testified protocols barred walk-in access and that Abrahem’s claim was not believed.
- He was convicted after a two-day trial; on appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence that his statement was material.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding the statement was material under § 1001.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Abrahem’s false statement was material under §1001(a)(2). | United States contends the statement had a natural tendency to influence the decision. | Abrahem argues the statement could not influence any decision due to protocol and lack of believability. | Materiality satisfied; statement capable of influencing decision. |
| What decision was the agency trying to make, and could the statement influence it. | Government argues the decision was whether Abrahem could see Hasan after clearance or be referred for CID consideration. | Abrahem contends no decision to admit was possible under protocol. | Statement could influence the process to advance to clearance or referral, not merely instant access. |
| Does delusional delivery defeat materiality? | Government asserts materiality focuses on the intrinsic tendency to influence, not persuasiveness. | Abrahem claims the delusional, noncredible delivery renders the statement immaterial. | Delivery does not defeat materiality; intrinsic nature of the misrepresentation governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (Supreme Court 1995) (materiality requires historical facts to determine influence on decisionmaker)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1988) (materiality: statements must have a natural tendency to influence the decisionmaking body)
- Najera Jimenez, 593 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2010) (materiality includes misrepresentations capable of impairing agency function)
- McBane v. United States, 433 F.3d 344 (3d Cir. 2005) (natural tendency test applied to determine materiality of a false statement)