United States v. Julie Grant
850 F.3d 209
5th Cir.2017Background
- Julie Grant filed multiple bankruptcy petitions (2008–2011); indicted in 2014 on four counts under 18 U.S.C. § 152(3) for false statements under penalty of perjury on Official Form B-21 (Statement of Social Security Number(s)).
- Counts Two and Four alleged she listed only SSN ending 5571 on two petitions while knowing she had also used SSN ending 3167; Counts One and Three alleged failure to disclose prior bankruptcies; jury acquitted on Count One and convicted on Counts Two–Four.
- Grant moved to dismiss Counts Two and Four arguing Form B-21 requires disclosure only of numbers the debtor "has" (i.e., currently possesses), not every number ever used; district court denied dismissal and allowed the indictment to proceed.
- At trial the Government introduced evidence that Grant had continued to use the 3167 number after receiving 5571 (including a bankruptcy filing that used 3167 post-5571 and SSA testimony), and the jury found she knowingly made material false statements under penalty of perjury.
- Sentencing used the perjury guideline U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3 (offense level 14 → 15–21 months); Grant argued the fraud guideline § 2B1.1 applied; district court imposed concurrent 15-month terms and one year supervised release.
- Grant appealed: (1) indictment sufficiency for Counts Two & Four; (2) sufficiency of evidence on those counts; (3) appropriate sentencing guideline (perjury v. fraud). Court of Appeals affirmed on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency (Counts 2 & 4) | Government: indictment alleged elements of §152(3) and alleged Grant knowingly failed to disclose an SSN she was obligated to disclose | Grant: indictment misstates law by suggesting Form B-21 requires disclosure of every SSN "ever used"; therefore indictment defective | Indictment sufficient; any erroneous explanatory language was surplusage and did not mislead or broaden the charge |
| Prejudice from surplusage in indictment | Gov: jury instructions and forms cured any surplusage; evidence showed Grant had both numbers | Grant: language could lead jury to convict for conduct ("used" but not "have") that is not unlawful | No prejudice; jury instructions, the actual forms, and overwhelming evidence made any error harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence (Counts 2 & 4) | Gov: presented evidence (post-5571 use of 3167; SSA testimony; bankruptcy filing) from which jury could infer Grant still "had" 3167 | Grant: Government failed to prove she "had" 3167 at times Forms were signed | Evidence sufficient; viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sentencing guideline (perjury §2J1.3 v. fraud §2B1.1) | Gov: offense was false declarations under penalty of perjury; indictment and conduct focused on false oath to court | Grant: conduct was fraudulent and harmed creditors, so fraud guideline should apply | Use of perjury guideline affirmed: charged conduct and proof focused on false statements under oath, not creditor loss or fraud scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spurlin, 664 F.3d 954 (5th Cir.) (elements of § 152(3) described)
- United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying perjury guideline where indictment emphasized false declaration to bankruptcy court)
- United States v. Beard, 913 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1990) (prior decision applying fraud guideline to § 152; court explains later guideline-index changes)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error review for erroneous jury instructions)
- United States v. Good, 326 F.3d 589 (4th Cir. 2003) (distinguishable; literal-truth defense on form-based false-statement charge)
- United States v. Hoover, 467 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for indictment sufficiency)