## Facts

- After Manning’s federal conviction, a U.S. Probation Officer conducted a presentence interview and prepared a presentence report (PSR) and net worth statement for sentencing.
- In responding to questions about assets, Manning did not disclose a 401(k) retirement account worth about $40,000.
- The government indicted Manning under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for knowingly and willfully making a materially false statement in a matter within federal jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed the indictment, concluding that statements made to a probation officer during PSR preparation fell within § 1001(b)’s judicial-function exception.
- The government appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s false statement or omission to a federal probation officer during a presentence interview for PSR preparation is exempt from § 1001(a) under the judicial-function exception in § 1001(b).
2. Whether a probation officer preparing a PSR is performing a judicial function (covered by § 1001(b)) or an investigative/administrative function (covered by § 1001(a)).
3. Whether the omission of a substantial retirement account is material to the probation officer’s presentence investigation and the sentencing process.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the order dismissing the indictment.
- The court held that a defendant’s false statement or omission to a probation officer during a presentence investigation is prosecutable under § 1001(a) and is not covered by § 1001(b).
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1001(b)’s judicial-function exception is construed narrowly and primarily protects statements submitted by parties or counsel to a judge in the course of litigation advocacy in a judicial proceeding.
- A probation officer’s presentence work is investigative and administrative fact-gathering, not an exercise of adjudicative judicial power; statements made to the officer during that process are not insulated by § 1001(b).
- A false omission is material under § 1001(a) when it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the probation officer’s recommendations and sentencing-related determinations (including fines, restitution, and related financial assessments).

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that § 1001(b) does not shield false statements made to federal probation officers during presentence investigations, and it reinstated the government’s § 1001(a) prosecution based on Manning’s omission of a substantial retirement asset.


United States v. Manning, 526 F.3d 611 (10th Cir. 2008)