Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. TRACY

August 11, 1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
VINCENT S. TRACY, JR., Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM M. SKRETNY

 INTRODUCTION

 Before this Court is defendant's motion to dismiss Counts VI, VII, and VIII of the ten-count Superseding Indictment against him. Trial of this case is scheduled to begin August 22, 1995. The counts defendant moves to dismiss charge that he made false statements and conspired to make false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2, and 18 U.S.C. § 371. The other counts of the Indictment charge violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1957 and 2, 1623, and 982. Defendant moves to dismiss the false statements counts based on the May 15, 1995 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hubbard v. United States, U.S. , 115 S. Ct. 1754, 131 L. Ed. 2d 779 (1995). Oral argument on defendant's motion was heard July 28, 1995. *fn1"

 For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion to dismiss Counts VI, VII, and VIII of the Indictment is denied.

 FACTS

 On March 6, 1991, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Maxwell, who stayed execution of the warrant. (Daniels Aff. P 10, Response, pp. 2-3.) John Pieri, Esq., appeared on behalf of defendant in subsequent proceedings. According to defendant, Magistrate Judge Maxwell requested and directed that the parties meet in an attempt to settle this matter. (Daniels Aff. P 11.) Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") Richard D. Kaufman sent Magistrate Judge Maxwell a letter dated November 14, 1991, stating:

 
I have been in contact with John Pieri, Esq., who is representing Vincent S. Tracy concerning this matter. Mr. Pieri has assured me that Mr. Tracy is attempting to reconstruct whatever payments were made on the contract, which the Government has agreed to credit to obligator. I would recommend that we proceed in this voluntary, informal manner in an attempt to resolve some of the issues that will likely arise in any future litigation. However, if you determine that a status meeting should be held, please so advise.

 (Daniels Aff. P 12, exh. D., Response, p. 3, n.2.)

 Pier later provided AUSA Kaufman with two affidavits: (1) the affidavit of Anthony F. DeMola dated February 25, 1992, and (2) the affidavit of James D. DeMola dated February 3, 1992. *fn3" The affidavits stated that Anthony DeMola had repaid $ 20,000 of the debt to Hood from monies DeMola had borrowed from his father, James DeMola. (Daniels Aff. PP 13-14; Response, p. 3.) These affidavits, which contain statements the government claims are false, are the basis of the § 1001 counts against defendant. (Daniels Aff. P 5; Response, p. 3, n.3.) Pieri testified before the grand jury that he submitted the affidavits to AUSA Kaufman "for him to evaluate them and determine whether he would give us any credit for the monies that were indicated." Defendant testified that the affidavits "were prepared to be a claim to the Government to be negotiated." (Response, p. 4, exhs.) AUSA Kaufman testified that the affidavits were among a "number of things" Pieri provided during settlement negotiations.

 DISCUSSION

 Defendant moves to dismiss the false statements counts against him based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hubbard v. United States, U.S. , 115 S. Ct. 1754, 131 L. Ed. 2d 779 (1995). In Hubbard, the Supreme Court held that a federal court is neither a "department" nor an "agency" within the meaning of the federal false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Defendant contends that since he submitted the DeMola affidavits in connection with a federal court proceeding, § 1001 does not apply. The question this Court must decide is whether Hubbard proscribes the government from prosecuting under § 1001 a defendant who submits a false affidavit to the Office of the United States Attorney to negotiate the settlement of a seizure warrant pending in federal court. Based on the plain language of the statute and the breadth of Hubbard, this Court holds that it does not.

 A. The Indictment and Section 1001

 Counts VII and VIII of the indictment charge that defendant "did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully cause false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations to be made in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York" ("U.S. Attorney's Office") in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Count VI charges ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.