## Facts

- Dalton Brown administered the Detroit Housing Department’s Section 8 program and signed Section 8 certificates and vouchers tied to federal rent subsidies.
- Yvonne Meadows, a housing-eligibility investigator in the same program, was a longtime personal friend of Brown and worked on eligibility investigations connected to applications.
- HUD regulations required eligible applicants to be placed on a waiting list and selected for subsidies in a prescribed order.
- The government alleged Brown caused certificates/vouchers to be issued to people who had not been selected from the waiting list, including Meadows’s friends and family, political associates, and individuals connected to someone who paid bribes.
- The prosecution theory for the false-statement counts was that signing the certificates/vouchers falsely represented to HUD that recipients were “eligible,” meaning properly selected through the waiting-list system.
- Brown was convicted on multiple counts, including knowingly making false statements to HUD (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and bribery-related offenses; Meadows was convicted primarily as an aider and abettor (18 U.S.C. § 2) of Brown’s § 1001 offenses.
- Both defendants appealed; Meadows challenged the sufficiency of evidence on her mens rea for aiding and abetting, and Brown challenged sufficiency and sentencing-related rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Meadows knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted Brown’s false-statement violations under 18 U.S.C. § 2.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Brown knowingly made materially false statements to HUD under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by signing certificates/vouchers for recipients not properly selected from the waiting list.
3. Whether “eligibility,” as represented by Section 8 certificates/vouchers, could be treated as requiring compliance with the waiting-list selection rules for purposes of § 1001 material falsity.
4. Whether the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines to Brown, including loss-related and public-trust/bribery enhancements.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed Brown’s convictions and sentence.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed Meadows’s convictions for aiding and abetting Brown’s § 1001 violations due to insufficient evidence of the required mens rea.
- The court held the evidence supported the view that Brown’s signed certificates/vouchers constituted affirmative representations of compliance with Section 8 eligibility requirements, including the waiting-list selection process.
- The court upheld the materiality of misrepresentations about compliance with the waiting-list system because such compliance had a natural tendency to influence HUD’s subsidy administration.
- The court affirmed the district court’s Guidelines calculations and enhancements applied to Brown.

## Legal Principles

- Aiding-and-abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2 requires proof the defendant knew of the principal’s criminal objective and intended to help bring it about; presence, association, or participation in irregular conduct is insufficient without proof of intentional facilitation.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a defendant’s affirmative certification or signature submitted within a federal program can constitute a “statement” that is actionable if knowingly false and material.
- In regulatory-benefits programs, statements implying compliance with mandatory selection mechanisms can be materially false when the selection mechanism is part of what makes recipients eligible for benefits.
- A false statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the federal agency’s decision-making or administration of the program.
- Sentencing enhancements tied to loss-related calculations, volume of fraudulent benefits, abuse of public trust, and bribery conduct may be sustained when supported by record evidence and not clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The court treated Section 8 certificates and vouchers as representations of compliance with the program’s waiting-list eligibility rules, sustaining Brown’s § 1001 and bribery convictions and related sentencing determinations, but it reversed Meadows’s aiding-and-abetting convictions because the record did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly and intentionally sought to make Brown’s false statements succeed.


United States v. Brown, 151 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1998)