United States v. James E. Mattox, Jr., 689 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. James E. Mattox, Jr., 689 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1997 · 2 courts · …silence may be falsity when it misleads, particularly if there is a duty to speak. at p. 533 ✓
25 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Crop Growers Corp. (dcd, 1997-01-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Crop Growers Corp. (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
D.D.C. · 1997 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
silence may be falsity when it misleads, particularly if there is a duty to speak.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Celis
2d Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
This evidence was adequate to prove both the falsity of Celis’s statement, see, e.g., United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 532-33 (5th Cir.1982), and the materiality of that statement.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Connolly
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Given the fact that defendant presents us with no argument and cites to no authority on this point, and given the further fact that there is authority which supports the proposition that leaving a form blank can constitute a statement or representation under section 1001, see United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 533 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Irwin, 654 F.2d 671, 676 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1016 (1982), we will regard the argument as waived.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Connolly
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Given the fact that defendant presents us with no argument and cites to no authority on this point, and given the further fact that there is authority which supports the proposition that leaving a form blank can constitute a statement or representation under section 1001, see United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 533 (5th Cir. ___ _____________ ______ 1982); United States v. Irwin, 654 F.2d 671, 676 (10th Cir. _____________ _____ 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1016 (1982), we will regard the ____________ argument as waived.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gerald Waechter
6th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Dick, 744 F.2d 546, 554 (7th Cir.1984) (sworn statement that affidavits were complete when in fact they were incomplete); United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 532 (5th Cir.1982) (false statements made by failure to answer questions on government form when defendant had a duty to supply the information sought); United States v. Barbato, 471 F.2d 918 (1st Cir.1973) (by his signature defendant certified that a financial statement he submitted to HUD was correct, although it failed to disclose an outstanding liability); United States v. Leach, 427 F.2d 1107, 1111 (1st…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Tomas Maldonado
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Because Maldonado failed to move for a judgment of acquittal, 14 our review of this issue is a limited one: we look only to see whether his conviction constituted “a manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Freeze, 707 F.2d 132, 135 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 532 (5th Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ronald Stancil Freeze
5th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Because he did not move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence, his conviction is reviewed solely for “manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 532 (5th Cir.1982); United States v. Doe, 664 F.2d 546, 548 (5th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Robert E. Ladum Ronald D. Van Vliet Daniel Hong Echols Doyle Ford David C. Grigonis James R. Weaver (2×)
9th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 533 (5th Cir.1982) (“Leaving a blank is equivalent to an answer ‘none’ or a statement that there are no facts required to be reported____ If there are facts that should be reported, leaving a blank belies the certification ... that the information therein is true and correct.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Borman, 992 F.2d at 126 .
discussed Cited "see" Ebasco Constructors, Inc. v. Rex
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 538 (5th Cir.1982) (in a case concerning the application of § 1001 to a defendant who had a duty to supply information on government forms, the court held that “[science may be falsity when it misleads, particularly if there is a duty to speak”).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Harry Ellis
7th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 532 (5th Cir.1982) (stating that when there is a duly to provide information to government with respect to worker's compensation benefits, the "knowing failure to supply the information requested is sufficient to permit ... a jury to conclude that [the defendant] has made a false statement”); United States v. Irwin, 654 F.2d 671, 676 (10th Cir.1981) (charge of making a false statement on an application for a grant from the Economic Development Administration includes leaving sections of application blank; "If there are facts that should be reported,…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Leal
5th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 533 (5th Cir.1982) (“Silence may be falsity when it misleads, particularly if there is a duty to speak.”). (4) Finally, with respect to count nine, Leal argues that he did not make a false statement when he said that he had “disclosed all contingent liabilities” because he was not required to disclose the consulting fees as a “contingent” liability.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Richard K. Borman and Betty L. White
7th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 533 (5th Cir.1982) (leaving a question unanswered constitutes making a false statement if in fact the question should have been answered). *127 For the foregoing reasons, we Affirm the district court’s dismissal of the indictment.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Poindexter
D.D.C. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 533 (5th Cir.1982).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. John Shipley
5th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
United States v. Wright, 211 F.3d 233, 238 (5th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 533 (5th Cir.1982) (“Silence may be falsity when it misleads.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wessinger v. Cain
M.D. La. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.1970); See also United States v. Leal, 30 F.3d 577 (5th Cir.1994) (citing See United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 533 (5th Cir.1982))("silence may be falsity when it misleads, particularly if there is a duty to speak”). 35 . 292 F.3d 226 (5th Cir.2002). 36 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James E. MATTOX, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
82-1170.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 8, 1982.
689 F.2d 531
1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24929
Fred L. Tinsley, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant., Jack C. Williamson, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Rubin, Randall, Jolly.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
[*532] PER CURIAM:

A person who had a duty to supply information on a government form contends he may not be convicted of making a false statement if he in fact had relevant information but filled in the letters “N/A” or inserted nothing in a blank space provided for his answers. We conclude that either the insertion of N/A or the knowing failure to supply the information requested is sufficient to permit, although it of course does not require, a jury to conclude that he has made a false statement.

In connection with his receipt of federal workers’ compensation benefits, Mattox was required to file annually CA 1032 forms with the Department of Labor. These forms each contained the following instructions:

1. You must report all employment during the past 12 months (or since your last employment and pay was reported to our office if less than 12 months ago).
2. You must account for the entire time, including periods of self-employment or unemployment.

The forms provide spaces for the employee to provide information as to names of employers, dates of employment, rates of pay and kind of work. Above the signature line on each form is the statement: “I Hereby Certify That The Information Given By Me On And In Connection With This Questionnaire Is True And Correct To The Best Of My Knowledge And Belief.”

Although employed, Mattox failed to provide the requested information on four CA 1032 forms. Instead, he v/rote “N/A” in answer to the employment questions on three of the forms. On the fourth, he simply left the employment questions blank.

Although he failed to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence, Mattox challenges the sufficiency of the’ evidence supporting his convictions, for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1920 (1976). Because Mattox failed to renew his motion for acquittal at the end of all the evidence, our review of its sufficiency is limited to preventing a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Doe, 664 F.2d 546, 548 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Perez, 651 F.2d 268, 273 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Robbins, 623 F.2d 418, 420 (5th Cir. 1980). In conducting that review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and accept all reasonable inferences supporting the jury’s verdict. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680, 704 (1942); United States v. Espinoza-Franco, 668 F.2d 848, 849 (5th Cir. 1982).

Mattox argues that his answers on the CA 1032 cannot be characterized as “false.” [1] Instead, he argues, they were only failures to fill in a blank or no answers at all. Answering “N/A” to a question is not the same as failing to answer the question. In common usage, “N/A” means “not applicable.” Since Mattox was employed, the question was applicable to him. Therefore, the insertion of “N/A” was sufficient to warrant a jury in concluding that there was an answer, and that the answer given was a false response. [2] There was also evi[*533] dence sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Mattox made a false statement when on one of the forms he left the answer to the employment questions blank. “ ‘Leaving a blank is equivalent to an answer “none” or a statement that there are no facts required to be reported.’ ... If there are facts that should be reported, leaving a blank belies the certification . . . that the information therein is ‘true and correct.’ ” United States v. Irwin, 654 F.2d 671, 676 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1709, 72 L.Ed.2d 133 (1982) (quoting United States v. McCarthy, 422 F.2d 160, 162 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 398 U.S. 946, 90 S.Ct. 1864, 26 L.Ed.2d 286 (1970)). Silence may be falsity when it misleads, particularly if there is a duty to speak. The evidence warranted the conclusion that Mattox had a duty to fill in the blank if he had been employed and that his failure to do so was equivalent to an answer, and a false one at that.

Because we find that Mattox made false statements on his CA 1032 forms, we do not find that his convictions constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice.

For these reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

1

. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1976) provides in relevant part:

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully .. . makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations .. . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Id. (emphasis supplied). 18 U.S.C. § 1920 (1976) provides in relevant part:

Whoever makes, in an affidavit or report required by section 8106 of title 5 or in a claim for compensation under subchapter I of Chapter 51 of title 5, a statement, knowing it to be false, is guilty of perjury and shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Id. (emphasis supplied).

2

. This is one of the reasons that Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), relied upon by Mattox, is simply inapposite to this case. In Bronston, the statement was “literally true.” Id. at 353, 93 S.Ct. at 597, 34 L.Ed.2d at 570. Moreover, the Bronston opinion explicitly states that the conduct at issue in that case was “not to be judged by the same standards applicable to criminally fraudulent . . . statements.” Id. at 357 n.4, 93 S.Ct. at 599 n.4, 34 L.Ed.2d at 573 n.4.