Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, v. John Joseph Quirk, Ii, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 266 F.2d 26
Argued April 9, 1959 Decided April 28, 1959
John T. Curtin, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Joseph J. Zapitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Harold K. Wood, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted under 18 U.S. C.A. § 1001 for having "* * * wilfully and knowingly caused the Liberty Federal Savings and Loan Association * * * to submit to the Veterans Administration * * * a false document entitled `Application for Home Loan Guarantee of Insurance' which application contained a false, fictitious and fraudulent statement." We agree with Judge Kraft in the district court that where the appellant's conduct was wilful, as was here shown, the government had the right to proceed under Section 1001 and assume the burden of establishing wilfulness rather than to bring an indictment under the more specific provisions of 38 U.S. C.A. § 715. And we also agree that the wilful submission of the false document was "* * * calculated to induce agency reliance or action, irrespective of whether actual favorable agency action was, for other reasons impossible" [167 F.Supp. 464] and so established the materiality of the submitted application.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.