United States v. Carlos Ezeta
752 F.3d 1182
9th Cir.2014Background
- Between 2008–2011 Ezeta, a bilingual CSN counselor/professor, completed and electronically submitted FAFSA applications for Spanish-speaking students who had not met education requirements.
- Eight students were involved; six received federal loan disbursements totaling $8,709; intended loss from falsified FAFSAs was $37,341.
- Investigators used an undercover Spanish-speaking agent; Ezeta was recorded completing a falsified FAFSA and later admitted submitting forms to "help people."
- No evidence showed Ezeta personally received or was paid with the federally insured funds; funds were disbursed to the students and spent at the college.
- Ezeta was indicted on four counts under 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a); the district court dismissed the indictment, holding the statute requires personal receipt or control of the funds. The government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a)’s word "obtain" requires the defendant to personally receive, possess, or exercise dominion/control over federally insured funds | Government: "Obtain" covers causing funds to be disbursed by fraud to another; liability need not require personal possession | Ezeta: Statute requires personal receipt/control of funds; indictment fails absent allegation he touched or controlled money | Court: "Obtain" in §1097(a) does not require personal dominion/control; causing disbursement to a third party by fraud suffices |
| Whether alternative liability (aiding/abetting / §2) would sustain charges if personal receipt were required | Government: Even if "obtain" required receipt, defendant could be liable as principal under §2 by causing an innocent agent to commit the element | Ezeta: Emphasized lack of proof others acted willfully; argued insufficiency of indictment | Court: Even if required, defendant could be liable under §2(b); existence of a knowing principal is immaterial to liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (use ordinary meaning of undefined statutory words)
- Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23 (statute interpreted broadly; no specific intent to injure required for "willful misapplication")
- United States v. McFall, 558 F.3d 951 (9th Cir.) ("obtain" can encompass third‑party receipt)
- United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir.) (intent to deceive not an element of financial aid fraud)
- United States v. Frost, 281 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.) (fraud remains fraud despite defendant's belief in justification)
- United States v. Morris, 723 F.3d 934 (8th Cir.) (sufficient evidence where parents obtained grants for children by fraud)
- United States v. Redfearn, 906 F.2d 352 (8th Cir.) ("obtain" construed to require disbursement or attempted disbursement to someone)
- United States v. Causey, 835 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir.) (liability under §2 where defendant causes innocent agent to commit an indispensable element)