520 F. App'x 928
11th Cir.2013Background
- Rosario appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for knowingly making a false statement to a federal agency (TSA/Federal Air Marshal).
- Rosario argues the government failed to prove the materiality of the false statement about the number of guns in his luggage.
- The review is de novo for sufficiency of the evidence and Rule 29/ JMOL, with all inferences viewed in the government's favor.
- Materiality requires a statement to have a natural tendency to influence the agency's decision; the government need not prove actual influence.
- The record shows TSA requires declaration of firearms and undeclared firearms pose security concerns; a false gun-count could influence investigation, supporting materiality; the conviction is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Rosario's statement to the Air Marshal material? | Rosario argues lack of materiality. | Gov't contends statement could influence agency decisions. | Yes; evidence supports materiality. |
| What is the proper materiality standard and applicable standard of review? | Standard should be stringent; misapplied. | Standard articulated by Gaudin governs materiality; de novo review. | Materiality requires potential influence; review de novo. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (defines materiality and historical-fact inquiry for jury determination)
- United States v. McCarrick, 294 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2002) (elements of §1001 false statement to a federal agency)
- United States v. Boffil–Rivera, 607 F.3d 736 (11th Cir. 2010) (government need show only capability to influence, not actual influence)
- United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d 480 (11th Cir.) (reaffirms de novo review for sufficiency and Rule 29/ JMOL)
- Rosario v. United States, - () (as observed in the opinion text (not a separate cited case))