United States v. Camick
796 F.3d 1206
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Camick used his deceased brother Wayne Camick’s identity to enter the U.S. and evade Canadian obligations, including taxes and child support.
- He obtained his brother’s birth certificate and social-insurance card, then used a Vermont license listing the brother’s name.
- He and Lyn Wattley purchased a Kansas home with Wattley’s funds, with both names on the contract and deed.
- He filed a Provisional Patent Application in 2011 under the name Wayne Camick, which became the basis for wire fraud and false-statement counts.
- A Quiet Title action revealed Camick’s true identity; he sent a misleading Quiet Title Letter in Wayne Camick’s name, which formed the basis of the mail-fraud count.
- He was later arrested in New Jersey, admitted his true identity, and Wattley discovered the apparent misrepresentations through civil and state legal actions, including a Civil Rights Lawsuit and a quiet-title dispute.
- In the criminal action, the government charged seven counts including mail fraud, wire fraud, material false statement, three aggravated identity theft counts, and obstruction of justice; Camick was convicted at trial, but on appeal the convictions except obstruction of justice were reversed, and restitution was partly vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of mail fraud evidence | Camick argues materiality was lacking | Government contends materiality supported by misrepresentations | Convictions for mail fraud reversed for immateriality |
| Sufficiency of wire fraud and material false statement evidence | Camick contends statements were not material | Government argues statements could influence PTO decision | Convictions reversed due to immateriality |
| Sufficiency of aggravated identity theft convictions | Camick argues underlying counts lacked valid basis | Government relied on reversed underlying felonies | Aggravated identity theft convictions reversed |
| Obstruction of justice sufficiency | Camick argues lacked retaliatory intent | Government argues infers retaliatory intent from Civil Rights Lawsuit | Conviction for obstruction of justice affirmed |
| Restitution causation under MVRA | Losses must be shown to be caused by conduct of conviction | Government must prove causation for all claimed losses | Causation requires reversal/remand for contested items; remand for further proof on obstruction-related losses |
Key Cases Cited
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (materiality of falsehood is an element of mail fraud)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (U.S. 2010) (limits reach of mail fraud to property rights; materiality requirement explained)
- Gordon v. United States, 710 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2013) (materiality requires statement to influence the decisionmaking body)
- Schulte v. United States, 741 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2014) (material false statement; framework for materiality and decision influence)
- Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (provisional patent applications are not examined; materiality analysis noted)