## Facts

- William Cody Horvath pleaded guilty in federal court to being a fugitive in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(2) and 924(a)(2).
- During the plea process, Horvath claimed he had served in the United States Marine Corps; he later admitted he never served.
- In a presentence interview, Horvath repeated the claimed military service to a probation officer preparing the presentence report (PSR).
- The probation officer included the claimed service history in the PSR and submitted the PSR to the sentencing judge as part of the sentencing process.
- The government later indicted Horvath under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) for making a materially false statement in a matter within federal jurisdiction, based on the PSR-related statement.
- Horvath moved to dismiss, arguing the § 1001(b) judicial-proceeding exception applied because the statement was submitted to the judge in the PSR.
- The district court denied the motion; Horvath appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b) excludes from § 1001(a) liability a defendant’s false statement made to a probation officer during a presentence interview when the statement is included in a PSR that must be submitted to the sentencing judge.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and ordered dismissal of the indictment.
- The court held § 1001(b) applies to a defendant’s false statement to a probation officer when, and only when, the officer is required by law to include the statement in the PSR and to submit the PSR to the judge.
- The court denied rehearing en banc, leaving the panel decision in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1001(b) exempts from § 1001(a) prosecution statements “submitted by” a party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in a judicial proceeding.
- A statement may be treated as “submitted by” the party to the judge when governing law requires an intermediary to transmit it to the judge in a required filing.
- In the sentencing context, statements incorporated into a PSR fall within § 1001(b) only if the probation officer is legally required to include them and the PSR must be submitted to the sentencing judge.
- The exception is not categorical for all statements to probation officers; it is limited to statements that must, by law, be conveyed to the judge through the PSR process.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit construed § 1001(b) to bar a § 1001(a) false-statement prosecution based on a defendant’s presentence interview statement when the statement is required to be included in the PSR and the PSR must be submitted to the sentencing judge, and it reversed with instructions to dismiss the indictment.


United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2007)