United States v. Isadore Banks , 123 F. App'x 246 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-2598
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    *
    Isadore Butler Banks, II,               *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Apepllant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: January 13, 2005
    Filed: January 28, 2005
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Isadore Butler Banks, II (Banks), was convicted following a bench trial of
    making a false statement of a material fact in connection with the receipt of federal
    compensation benefits, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1920. Banks challenges the
    sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s1 finding that he possessed
    the requisite mental state. He also challenges the district court’s calculation of
    restitution. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    I.
    Banks was a United States Postal Service employee. Following a work injury,
    he applied for and received disability benefits in 1991 under the Federal Employees’
    Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. Pursuant to the regulations
    implementing FECA, Banks was periodically required to submit a form, CA-1032,
    during the time that he received disability benefits. The form asked, inter alia,
    whether Banks had been “self-employed or involved in any business enterprise” in
    the fifteen-month period preceding his submission of the form. The form indicated
    that any misleading or fraudulent statements could subject Banks to prosecution.
    In June of 2001, Banks married Tracy Macon, the owner of Evans
    Transportation (Evans). In July of 2001, Banks submitted a CA-1032 and wrote
    “Hell, no” in response to the question referenced above. After officials became
    suspicious of his involvement with Evans, Banks was charged with knowingly and
    willfully making a false statement. He was found guilty and sentenced to ten months’
    imprisonment and three years’ supervised release and ordered to pay a special
    assessment of $100.00 and restitution in the amount of $62,508.86.
    II.
    In reviewing Banks’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine
    the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving it the benefit of all
    reasonable inferences. United States v. Caldwell, 
    292 F.3d 595
    , 596 (8th Cir. 2002).
    We reverse only if we conclude that a reasonable fact-finder must have entertained
    a reasonable doubt about the government’s proof of one of the offense’s essential
    elements. 
    Id. Evidence at
    trial establishing Banks’s relationship with Evans included: (1) a
    vehicle registration form indicating that the vehicle was owned by Banks and Evans;
    (2) an application for a post office box listing Banks as an “authorized representative”
    -2-
    of Evans; (3) a vehicle for hire permit application that listed Banks as the “company
    agent” for Evans; (4) a postal return receipt signed by Banks for a letter sent to Evans;
    (5) articles of incorporation for Evans (and another company, Banks Auto Group,
    Inc.) that listed Banks as an incorporator; (6) a business license application for Evans
    listing Banks as the owner; (7) the agreement for Evans’s corporate bank account
    listing Banks as an owner of the account; (8) forty-eight checks written to Evans that
    had been endorsed by Banks; (9) checks written from Evans’s account that had been
    signed by Banks; and (10) $5,499.12 in withdrawals from Evans’s account by Banks.
    Banks’s wife testified that she had placed his name on corporate documents
    without his knowledge. In light of this testimony, Banks contends that the district
    court erred in finding that Banks’s representation on the CA-1032 was made
    “knowingly and willfully” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1920. The government,
    however, may prove criminal intent by circumstantial evidence. United States v.
    Waldman, 
    310 F.3d 1074
    , 1078 (8th Cir. 2002). Moreover, in addition to the
    corporate documents indicating a relationship between Banks and Evans, numerous
    corporate checks attested to Banks’s involvement with the company. Giving the
    government the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we conclude that the evidence
    was sufficient to support the district court’s finding that Banks had the requisite intent
    under 18 U.S.C. § 1920.
    III.
    We review the district court’s finding of loss relating to restitution under the
    clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Young, 
    272 F.3d 1052
    , 1056 (8th Cir.
    2001).
    Banks submitted the CA-1032 that resulted in his conviction on July 19, 2001.
    That form covered the fifteen-month period from April 19, 2000, to July 19, 2001.
    Banks submitted a subsequent CA-1032 on July 13, 2002, and continued to represent
    that he was unemployed. The district court calculated restitution based on the
    -3-
    disability benefits that Banks received from April 19, 2000, to July 13, 2002. Banks
    contends, however, that no evidence suggests that he had any involvement with his
    wife’s businesses prior to January of 2001. Accordingly, he argues that he should not
    be liable for the amount of restitution based on benefits that he received from April
    19, 2000, to January of 2001 because any misrepresentation about his relationship
    with Evans could not have extended to that time period.
    CA-1032, in addition to warning of potential criminal prosecution, cautions
    that “[a] false or evasive answer to any question, or the omission of an answer, may
    be grounds for forfeiting of your compensation benefits.” The Seventh Circuit has
    noted that “[i]f a claimant submits a false 1032 statement he forfeits the entire
    disability benefit even if he would have been entitled to a reduced benefit if he had
    submitted an accurate 1032 form.” United States v. Brothers, 
    955 F.2d 493
    , 495 (7th
    Cir. 1992). Cf. United States v. Henry, 
    164 F.3d 1304
    , 1310 (10th Cir. 1999) (“the
    plain terms of [18 U.S.C. § 1920] pertain to ‘the amount of the benefits obtained,’ not
    the amount of benefits obtained minus the amount that would have been obtained if
    no false statement had been made”). We agree, and conclude that the district court
    properly determined that Banks forfeited his benefits for the entire period from April
    19, 2000, to July 13, 2002.
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2598

Citation Numbers: 123 F. App'x 246

Judges: Wollman, Murphy, Bye

Filed Date: 1/28/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024