Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, or of any State or Territory, or whoever, whether a person, association, firm, or corporation, knowingly makes any false statement, false representation, or false report as to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of the material used or to be used, or the quantity or quality of the work performed or to be performed, or the costs thereof in connection with the submission of plans, maps, specifications, contracts, or costs of construction of any highway or related project submitted for approval to the Secretary of Transportation; or
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement, false representation, false report, or false claim with respect to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of any work performed or to be performed, or materials furnished or to be furnished, in connection with the construction of any highway or related project approved by the Secretary of Transportation; or
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or false representation as to a material fact in any statement, certificate, or report submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Federal-Aid Road Act approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented,
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Hammond v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 107 P.3d 871 (Alaska 2005).
· cites it 6× “" In July 1995 Hammond filed charges with FHWA alleging criminal violations of 18 USC § 1020 [2] by DOTPF management. As a result of these charges, Hammond was placed on paid, off-site status, which subjected him to a reduction in wages.”
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
· cites it 2× “§ 1018 (penalizing public official who knowingly falsifies official certificate or writing); 18 U. S. C. § 1020 (penalizing false statement regarding highway projects); 18 U.”
United States v. Prosperi, 573 F. Supp. 2d 436 (D. Mass. 2008).
· cites it 5× “Defendants, for their part, argue that the Suspension Act does not apply because: (1) the United States is not currently “at war” within the meaning of the Act; and even if it were, (2) the mail fraud and false statement charges do not fall within the scope of the Act because…”
United States v. Photogrammetric Data Servs., Inc., 103 F. Supp. 2d 875 (E.D. Va. 2000).
· cites it 8× “On December 22, 1999, the United States filed an eight-count indictment against PDS and Webb, charging the defendants with Highway Project Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1020 , and Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Michael E. Gaudin, 28 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 1994).
“§ 1018 (penalizing public official who knowingly falsifies official certificate or writing); 18 U.S.C. § 1020 (penalizing false statement regarding highway projects); 18 U.”
Successfactors, Inc. v. Softscape, Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 975 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
“See 18 U.S.C. § 1020 (a)(5) (B)(ii)-(v). 2 . It is notable that the only evidence Defendant provides in support of this contention is the declaration of its general counsel and emails regarding the confidentiality of the presentation sent by Defendant’s CEO after this lawsuit…”
United States v. Michael Schaefer & Clairton Slag, Inc., 691 F.2d 639 (3rd Cir. 1982).
“, and its president, Michael Schaefer, were convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania of making false statements to a federal agency by misrepresenting the quantities of paving materials delivered to a federally funded highway project, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1020 ,…”
Redondo Constr. Corp. v. Izquierdo, 550 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D.P.R. 2008).
“§ 1014 , and making false statements in connection with highway projects and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. § 1020 . After RCC’s guilty plea, on April 16, 1999 Defendant PRHWTA suspended RCC from all of its bid procedures for a period of thirty (30) days.”
United States v. Palumbo Bros., 145 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 1998).
“The following counts of the indictment are still pending: (1) count 32, which charges PBI, Sebastian Palumbo, Abdishi, Ferrarini, and McGreevy with causing PBI to report and submit false statements in Pay Estimates, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1020 ; (2).counts 31, 33, and 34,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.