U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1972

United States v. Joseph Waters

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided March 28, 1972 · Biggs, Van Dusen Aldisert

457 F.2d 805; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10441 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

William J. Brady, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant., Jeffrey M. Miller, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Mary Rose Oakar and Joseph Demio (D.C. Cir. 1997)
United States v. Canel (District Court, Virgin Islands 1982)
United States v. Raymond L. Hooper (7th Cir. 1979)
United States v. Starnes (3d Cir. 2009)
United States v. James A. Notarantonio, United States of America v. Edward Notorantonio, United States of America v. Inge Company Incorporated (1st Cir. 1985)
United States v. Lauderdale (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review 1984)
United States v. Maria Del Carmen Castillo Montemayor (5th Cir. 1983)
United States v. Ragins (United States Court of Military Appeals 1981)
United States v. Lourice Baker and Lena Marie Knowlton (5th Cir. 1980)
United States v. Bobbie Stanford, Louis Watson, Janice Davis, Estella Patterson, Doris Beverly, Dorothy Fife, Richard O'rourke, and Dorothy Jones (7th Cir. 1978)
United States v. Joseph D. Beasley, M.D., United States of America v. Oscar E. Kramer, Jr. (5th Cir. 1977)
United States v. William P. Catena, M.D. (3d Cir. 1974)
The United States v. Harry C. Bass, Jr., the United States v. Selb Manufacturing Co. (8th Cir. 1973)
United States v. Clearfield (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1973)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of knowingly and wilfully making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001. His major contention is that any falsification of records was directed to the Urban League of Philadelphia, a contractor with the Department of Labor, and not to a government agency itself. We find this appeal to be without merit. See *806 Ebeling v. United States, 248 F.2d 429 (8th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Emerling v. United States, 355 U.S. 907, 78 S.Ct. 334, 2 L.Ed.2d 261 (1957).

The judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.