Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

350 F.2d 849

Docket No. 7963.

Henninger v. United States

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Sept. 16, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1965.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1965-09-16

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of . . . a Federal Savings and Loan Association . . . upon any application, . . . commitment, or loan, . . . shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Goberman

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1010

Relies on Leh v. General Petroleum Corp. · James Edwards, Jr. v. State of South Carolina · Bins v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-09-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 1987

15 federal appellate ·

70196519701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*850Sidney H. Tellis, Denver, Colo. (Louis Boggio, Denver, Colo., was with him on the brief), for appellant.

¶2Milton C. Branch, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Lawrence M. Henry, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

¶4LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

¶5Appellant was found guilty after trial to a jury upon each of three counts of an information charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1010 by making false statements in applications for Title I, F.H.A. home improvement loans. He appeals, contending that it was incumbent upon the United States to prove, as an element of the crimes, that his admittedly false statements actually influenced the Federal Housing Administration to insure the loans. The subject statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1010 provides in pertinent part:

“Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining any loan or advance of credit from any person, partnership, association, or corporation with the intent that such loan or advance of credit shall be offered to or accepted by the Federal Housing Administration for insurance … or for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of such Administration, makes, passes, utters, or publishes any statement, knowing the same to be false, … shall be fined … or imprisoned *

¶6The clear wording of the statute indicates that the essence of the crime lies in the making, passing, uttering, or publishing of a false application with the intent to influence the Administration and is not dependent upon the accomplishment of that purpose. Cohen v. United States, 6 Cir., 178 F.2d 588, cert. denied, 339 U.S. 920, 70 S.Ct. 623, 94 L.Ed. 1344; Bins v. United States, 5 Cir., 331 F.2d 390, 392, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 880, 85 S.Ct. 149, 13 L.Ed.2d 87. The crime is one of subjective knowledge and intent and requires no defrauding of the government nor reliance upon the part of its officials. See Brilliant v. United States, 8 Cir., 297 F.2d 385, 389, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 871, 82 S.Ct. 1140, 8 L.Ed.2d 275; United States v. Pesano, 2 Cir., 293 F.2d 229, 231. Appellant’s contrary contention is without merit.

¶7Although no instruction of the court was objected to, appellant now characterizes the instructions as “vague, uncertain, and erroneous.” We have examined the court’s charge for clear error, find none, and consider the instructions to be specific, certain and correct.

¶8The judgment is affirmed.

/350/f2d/849 · .json · Public domain