United States v. William Clark , 728 F.3d 622 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    No. 12-3603
    U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    W ILLIAM P ATRICK C LARK ,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Illinois.
    No. 11 CR 30236—G. Patrick Murphy, Judge.
    A RGUED A PRIL 5, 2013—D ECIDED JULY 23, 2013
    Before E ASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and F LAUM and
    W OOD , Circuit Judges.
    W OOD , Circuit Judge.      A grand jury sitting in
    the Southern District of Illinois returned an indictment
    charging William Patrick Clark, the owner and president
    of a company based in East St. Louis, Illinois, with
    making false statements in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
    (a)(3). Clark’s company had entered into a
    hauling services subcontract with Gateway Constructors,
    2                                             No. 12-3603
    a general contractor in charge of a federally funded
    highway improvement project in nearby St. Louis, Mis-
    souri. Federal law requires that employers pay
    laborers working on certain federally-funded projects a
    “prevailing wage,” a figure calculated by the Secretary of
    Labor “based on the wages [earned by] corresponding
    classes of [workers] employed on projects of a similar
    character” in a given area, and that contractors
    maintain payroll records demonstrating prevailing wage
    compliance. See 
    40 U.S.C. § 3142
    (b); 29 C.F.R. Pts. 1 & 3.
    According to the indictment, Clark submitted false
    payroll records and a false affidavit to Gateway Con-
    structors, representing that his employees were paid
    $35 per hour, when in fact they received only $13 or
    $14 per hour.
    Clark moved to dismiss the indictment for improper
    venue, arguing that “when a false document is filed
    under a statute that makes the filing of the document a
    condition precedent to the exercise of federal jurisdic-
    tion, venue is proper only in the district where the docu-
    ment was filed for final agency action.” Here, Clark
    contends, venue is proper only in the Eastern District
    of Missouri, where Gateway Constructors is based. The
    government countered that venue is proper in the
    Southern District of Illinois, because that is where the
    indictment alleged that Clark created the false payroll
    records and signed the affidavit. The district court ac-
    cepted Clark’s argument and dismissed the indictment
    without prejudice. We reverse.
    No. 12-3603                                               3
    I
    Clark was charged with ten counts of violating 
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
    (a)(3), which makes it unlawful knowingly and
    willfully to “make[] or use[] any false writing or docu-
    ment” in connection with a “matter within the jurisdiction
    of the executive . . . branch of the Government of the
    United States.” Nine of the counts are based on certified
    payroll records that Clark submitted to Gateway Construc-
    tors; the tenth concerns an affidavit that Clark later
    emailed to Gateway Constructors, assuring the con-
    tractor that Clark complied with the relevant labor stan-
    dards on the project. All of the documents, the indict-
    ment alleges, were “made” in St. Clair County, Illinois,
    within the Southern District of Illinois. We accept
    these factual allegations as true in assessing a pre-trial
    motion to dismiss an indictment for improper venue. See
    United States v. Engle, 
    676 F.3d 405
    , 415 (4th Cir. 2012).
    Congress has provided that “any offense against the
    United States begun in one district and completed in
    another, or committed in more than one district, may be
    inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such
    offense was begun, continued, or completed.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3237
    (a). The parties do not dispute that Section 1001
    lacks a separate venue provision, or that 
    18 U.S.C. § 3237
    applies. See F ED. R. C RIM. P. 18; United States v. Ringer,
    
    300 F.3d 788
    , 791 (7th Cir. 2002). The sole question here
    is whether the ten false-statement offenses outlined in
    the indictment were “begun, continued, or completed”
    in the Southern District of Illinois.
    When Congress has not specifically defined where a
    crime should be deemed to have occurred, “the locus
    4                                              No. 12-3603
    delicti [of the charged offense] must be determined from
    the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the
    act or acts constituting it.” United States v. Tingle, 
    183 F.3d 719
    , 726 (7th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v.
    Cabrales, 
    524 U.S. 1
    , 5 (1998)). This court has endorsed
    the “verb test” as a guide for this inquiry: “we examine
    the key verbs in the statute defining the criminal offense
    to find the scope of relevant conduct.” United States v.
    Muhammad, 
    502 F.3d 646
    , 652 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting
    United States v. Georgacarakos, 
    988 F.2d 1289
    , 1293 (1st
    Cir. 1993)). Verbs cannot be “the sole consideration” in
    assessing whether the constitutional venue guarantee
    has been satisfied, however, and venue may lie in a
    particular district even where rigid application of the
    “verb test” suggests that it should not. United States v.
    Rodriguez-Moreno, 
    526 U.S. 275
    , 279 (1999); see also
    Ringer, 
    300 F.3d at 792
     (rejecting argument that venue
    for false statement prosecution is proper only in district
    where false statements were uttered).
    The “key verbs” in the false statements statute
    under which Clark has been charged are “make” and
    “use.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
    (a)(3). The indictment alleges
    that Clark “made and used” (and “caused to be made
    and used”) false writings and documents within the
    Southern District of Illinois, and for present purposes,
    we accept these allegations as true. While venue
    might also be proper in some other district, see
    Muhammad, 
    502 F.3d at 653-54
    , the “verb test” supports a
    finding that conducting Clark’s trial in the Southern
    District of Illinois is consistent with Section 3237(a) and
    the Constitution. See U.S. C ONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 3 and
    amend. VI.
    No. 12-3603                                                  5
    The district court thought otherwise. It reasoned that,
    because no federal offense occurs “until such time as
    the general contractor . . . submit[s] those [documents] to
    the federal government for payment,” the Southern
    District of Illinois was an improper venue. The parties
    have not challenged this interpretation of Section 1001.
    But see United States v. Petullo, 
    709 F.2d 1178
    , 1180 (7th
    Cir. 1983) (“A false statement may fall within section 1001
    even when it is not submitted to a federal agency
    directly and the federal agency’s role is limited to
    financial support of a program it does not itself directly
    administer. In such cases, the necessary link . . . is provided
    by the federal agency’s retention of the ultimate
    authority to see that the federal funds are properly
    spent.”). Even if the completion of a Section 1001(a)(3)
    offense requires the submission of false documents to
    federal authorities, however, it does not follow that the
    making of the false documents cannot constitute the
    beginning of the offense. Indeed, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3237
    (a) is
    predicated on the assumption that, for certain offenses,
    the district in which an offense is “begun” will not be
    the district in which is it “continued” or “completed.”
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3237
    (a). Clark cites numerous cases sup-
    porting his argument that venue lies “in the jurisdiction
    affected by the offense,” even if the false statements
    were not made there. See, e.g., Ringer, 
    300 F.3d at 791-92
    .
    That may be so, but the fact that venue is proper in
    another district is neither here nor there: Clark’s
    authorities do not stand for the proposition that venue
    can exist in one and only one place. That mistaken as-
    sumption—that the Constitution “fix[es] a single
    6                                              No. 12-3603
    proper situs for trial”—is an “[a]nalytical flaw [that] has
    plagued analysis in this area.” Muhammad, 
    502 F.3d at 653
    (quoting United States v. Reed, 
    773 F.2d 477
    , 480 (2d Cir.
    1985)). Perhaps we can put it to rest with this decision.
    The only contrary authority that Clark has identified
    is Travis v. United States, in which the Supreme Court
    held that venue lay only in the District of Columbia for
    an indictment charging a labor union official with
    making and filing false non-Communist affidavits with
    the National Labor Relations Board. 
    364 U.S. 631
     (1961). In
    a false statements case shortly after Travis, however, this
    court followed the lead of the Tenth Circuit and held
    that “Travis is not controlling and is limited to the
    statute there involved.” United States v. Ruehrup, 
    333 F.2d 641
    , 643 (7th Cir. 1964) (citing Imperial Meat Co. v.
    United States, 
    316 F.2d 435
    , 440 (10th Cir. 1963)). Travis,
    however, does not support Clark’s argument. After
    careful consideration of the statute involved, the Court
    determined that “[t]he locus of the offense ha[d] been
    carefully specified” by Congress, and accordingly, that
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3237
    (a) was not applicable. 
    Id. at 639
    . Here,
    in contrast, the parties agree that 
    18 U.S.C. § 3237
    (a)
    provides the appropriate venue rule. See Ringer, 
    300 F.3d at 790-91
    .
    Prosecution in the Southern District of Illinois also is
    consistent with the important policy considerations
    animating the venue requirement. See United States v.
    Johnson, 
    323 U.S. 273
    , 276 (1944) (“Questions of venue in
    criminal cases . . . raise deep issues of public policy in
    the light of which legislation must be construed.”). Clark
    No. 12-3603                                                 7
    has not argued that trial in the Southern District of
    Illinois will subject him to “oppressive expenses, or . . . to
    the inability of procuring proper witnesses to establish
    his innocence.” United States v. Palma-Ruedas, 
    121 F.3d 841
    , 861-62 (3d Cir. 1997) (Alito, J., dissenting) (quoting
    JOSEPH S TORY, C OMMENTARIES ON THE C ONSTITUTION § 925
    (Carolina Acad. Press 1987) (1833)). Nor has he
    suggested that it will create “needless hardship” or the
    “appearance of abuses . . . in the selection of what
    may be deemed a tribunal favorable to the prosecution.”
    Johnson, 
    323 U.S. at 275
    . Although the effects of
    Clark’s alleged wrongdoing may be felt somewhat
    more strongly in Missouri than in Illinois, we reject
    the argument that the Southern District of Illinois is
    an improper venue to try this case.
    II
    Nothing that we have said should be taken as a sug-
    gestion that “actions [that] are merely preparatory or
    prior to the crime . . . are [] probative in determining
    venue.” Tingle, 
    183 F.3d at 726
    . They are not. In this case,
    though, one can hardly characterize the making of a
    false writing or document as “merely preparatory”
    conduct when the offenses charged are “making a
    false writing or document.” Rather, Clark committed in
    Illinois the very wrong that the statute proscribes. The
    “making” is an essential element that the government
    must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a con-
    viction. Accord Ruehrup, 
    333 F.2d at 643
     (“Defendant
    prepared rough drafts of the statements in issue
    8                                           No. 12-3603
    [in Illinois]. A stenographer typed the statements and
    submitted them to defendant for approval. The stenogra-
    pher deposited the statements in the mail. These events
    were the beginning of the offenses charged . . . .”).
    Accordingly, we R EVERSE and R EMAND for further
    proceedings.
    7-23-13