United States v. Eric Duke, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6539

Kurlemann built and sold luxury Ohio homes; financed projects with large loans and relied on Duke’s arrangement with straw buyers Webster and Gagnon.
Duke submitted loan applications falsely stating down payments; lender approved large loans based on these misrepresentations.
Emerald Isle deal used a chain of transfers to simulate a down payment; buyer signed promissory notes instead of actual cash.
Duke pled guilty; Kurlemann was convicted on multiple counts, including false statements to a lending institution under §1014 and bankruptcy fraud under §157; Duke received a 60-month sentence; Kurlemann received 24-month concurrent sentences and restitution.
The district court instructed that a “half-truth” could satisfy §1014; Kurlemann appeals, challenging the §1014 theory, the handling of the downward departure for Duke, and related issues; court reverses in part and remands for retrial or new sentencing proceedings.
Procedural posture and appellate relief include reversal of Kurlemann’s §1014 conviction on the half-truth theory, remand for retrial, and remand for a new sentencing proceeding for Duke; bankruptcy convictions affirmed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1014 covers false statements only or also omissions/half-truths.	Kurlemann argues §1014 encompasses half-truths and omissions.	Government contends §1014 covers false statements, including implied representations.	Court holds §1014 does not cover omissions/half-truths; reverses Kurlemann’s §1014 conviction for this theory and remands.
Whether the district court’s half-truth instruction was harmless error.	Kurlemann contends the instruction affected the verdict.	Government argues any error was harmless or supported by other theories.	Court finds no harmless error; reverses and remands for retrial on §1014 theory.
Whether the bankruptcy-fraud counts violated Double Jeopardy or were properly distinct.	Kurlemann argues multiplicity or improper consolidation.	Government maintains proper, distinct elements for each count.	Court concludes no plain error; bankruptcy convictions affirmed or remanded as appropriate; issue not dispositive here.
Whether Duke’s sentence was procedurally reasonable or required a remand for sentencing.	Duke argues sentencing procedure was flawed and requires de novo review.	Court should follow standard sentencing sequence with clear departure and range determination.	Court remands for a limited new sentencing proceeding to permit proper calculation and explanation.

Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279 (U.S. (1982)) (distinguishes false statements from omissions; half-truths not §1014 per se)
Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (U.S. (1991)) (harmless-error analysis for mixed theories not always controlling)
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (U.S. (1957)) (limits on implied representations; requires true/false statements for §1014)
Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279 (U.S. (1982)) (acknowledges distinction between false statements and omissions)
United States v. Waechter, 771 F.2d 974 (6th Cir. 1985) (no false-statement evidence where scheme lacked express misrepresentation)
United States v. Diogo, 320 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1963) (false representations vs concealment distinction)
United States v. Thorn, 17 F.3d 325 (11th Cir. 1994) (rejection of implicit false statements in title policy context)
United States v. Cluck, 143 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 1998) (multiplicity and Blockburger considerations for related counts)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. (1999)) (harmless-error standard for sentencing/conviction)