## Facts

- Dennis D. Herring began working for an Ohio construction company on January 12, 1987.
- On January 14, 1987, Herring applied to the Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) for unemployment benefits.
- Herring stated he left his prior job for lack of work and was unemployed during the preceding week, though he was already employed as of January 12.
- Based on the application and four additional claims, Herring received $870 in unemployment benefits paid from Georgia state funds.
- Georgia’s unemployment program was approved by the U.S. Secretary of Labor, and Georgia received federal funds to cover administrative costs.
- A U.S. Department of Labor investigation discovered Herring’s false statements.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1001 applies when false statements are made to a state agency administering a state unemployment program that is federally approved and receives federal administrative funding.
2. Whether such false statements are “within the jurisdiction” of a federal department or agency for purposes of § 1001.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Herring’s motion to dismiss and upheld the conviction.
- The court held § 1001 jurisdiction existed because the state program was federally approved and federally funded (administratively), bringing related matters within the Department of Labor’s jurisdiction.
- The court declined to adopt a narrower approach requiring a direct nexus between the false statement and a federal function or direct federal payments to the defendant.
- The court rejected the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 1919 displaced or limited prosecutions under § 1001 in this setting.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a false statement need not be made directly to a federal agency to be within federal jurisdiction if it concerns a matter tied to a federally supervised or federally funded program.
- A state agency may function as an instrumentality for § 1001 purposes when administering programs subject to federal approval and federal funding or oversight.
- Materiality under § 1001 is satisfied if the statement has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, governmental functions, including federal oversight and administration of a supervised program.
- The existence of a more specific criminal provision does not, without clear congressional direction, repeal or preclude application of § 1001 to conduct affecting federal interests.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that false statements made to a state unemployment agency fall within federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 when the unemployment program operates under federal approval and oversight and receives federal administrative funds, even if benefits are paid from state funds.


United States v. Herring, 916 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1990)