United States v. Marston, 694 F.3d 131

Marston filed a pro se Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in March 2009 alleging falsities in her petition and schedules.
She obtained credit cards in the names of Susan Blake and Kristy Kromer and used them without their permission.
In Schedule E/F she disclosed some Blake debts but omitted the card issuers and did not disclose Kromer or related uses; she signed under penalty of perjury.
Two counts were tried to the jury: Count One for failing to disclose use of Kromer/Blake; Count Four for omitting Blake-related debts from Schedule F.
The district court denied a Rule 29 motion; Marston was convicted on both counts and sentenced to concurrent terms.
On appeal, the First Circuit reversed Count Four and affirmed Count One, remanding for possible sentencing adjustment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Count One	Marston did not sufficiently prove falsity or mens rea.	The omissions were immaterial or lacked knowledge of falsity.	Sufficient evidence supports falsity and mens rea.
Materiality and scienter for Count One	Omissions about aliases were material and intentional.	Materiality is questionable; intent unclear.	Evidence supports materiality and fraudulent intent.
Count Four—falsity based on omitted Blake debts	Debts listed as Blake's and related claims should support falsity.	Debts may not have persisted against Marston at filing; ambiguity persists.	Count Four fails for lack of proof that claims existed at filing.
Preservation and standard of review for Rule 29 objections	General Rule 29 objections preserve all grounds.	Only specific grounds preserved; review limited.	General objections can preserve unraised grounds; review for plain error not required here.
Impact of stipulation timing and claims duration	Stipulation supports outstanding claims against Marston.	Stipulation fails to prove persistence of claims at filing.	Prosecution bears burden; stipulation insufficient to prove ongoing claims at filing.

United States v. Cutter, 313 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (established elements of false oath in bankruptcy)
Metheany v. United States, 390 F.2d 559 (9th Cir.) (elements restated for false statements under oath)
United States v. Troy, 583 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009) (reviewing evidence in light of the government's theory)
United States v. Rowe, 144 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1998) (fundamental ambiguity standard for false statements)
United States v. Moynagh, 566 F.2d 799 (1st Cir. 1977) (preservation of objections under Rule 29)
United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d 532 (1st Cir.) (preservation and standard of de novo review for sufficiency)
United States v. Pena-Lora, 225 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2000) (waiver doctrine for Rule 29 grounds)