United States v. Eric Duke, 708 F.3d 722

Kurlemann built and sold luxury homes in southern Ohio and used two straw buyers to obtain loans.
Duke submitted loan applications with false down-payment arrangements and misrepresented payments.
The buyers defaulted and prosecutors charged Kurlemann with false statements to a lending institution; Kurlemann was also charged with bankruptcy fraud.
Duke pled guilty; Kurlemann went to trial and was convicted on multiple counts; Duke testified for the government.
The district court sentenced Kurlemann to 24 months on false-statement and 24 months on bankruptcy-fraud counts; Duke received 60 months.
The government cross-appealed on forfeiture; the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1014 covers omissions or half-truths	Kurlemann contends Williams allows half-truths to violate §1014.	Kurlemann argues §1014 requires explicit false statements, not omissions.	§1014 does not cover half-truths or omissions.
Whether the district court erred by instructing half-truth theory and the government’s alternative theory	Waives reliance on implied representations if included in instruction.	Government argues alternative theory supports conviction.	Reversal required; remand for retrial with proper instructions.
Double jeopardy validity of bankruptcy counts	Counts 152(1), 152(3), and 157 overlap in theory.	Counts address distinct elements under Blockburger.	No plain error; counts survive under Blockburger.
Prosecutor misconduct and impact on Duke’s sentencing procedure	Alleged improper statements warrant new sentencing.	Judge-curing instructions sufficed; no new trial required.	No abuse; procedural sentencing error remanded for new proceeding.
Duke’s sentencing procedure after cooperation departure	District court properly downward departed for cooperation.	Court failed to specify post-departure guidelines range and departure extent.	Procedural error; remand for new sentencing.

Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279 (1982) (false-statement scope; half-truths and omissions not encompassed by §1014)
United States v. Diogo, 320 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1963) (false representations vs concealment distinguished)
United States v. Thorn, 17 F.3d 325 (11th Cir. 1994) (title policy omission not false statement)
United States v. Waechter, 771 F.2d 974 (6th Cir. 1985) (no express false statements from bid scheme)
Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (plain-error review governs improper sentencing theory adoption)
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (harm of instructing on multiple theories; need for proper theory)
United States v. Cluck, 143 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 1998) (multiplicity; distinct elements support multiple charges)
United States v. Montilla Ambrosiani, 610 F.2d 65 (1st Cir. 1979) (double jeopardy concerns in related counts)
United States v. Walker, 871 F.2d 1298 (6th Cir. 1989) (direct false-statement theory not half-truth instruction)
United States v. Van Allen, 526 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2008) (assets disclosure duty in bankruptcy)