United States v. Agbosasa, 1st Cir. (1994)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Agbosasa, 1st Cir. (1994)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUSCA1 Opinion
February 14, 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No.
92-1747
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
SAMSON O. AGBOSASA,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this court
amended as follows.
issued on February 11,
Page 2, line 25, please insert after the word
"gave did not implicate defendant in the filing".
1994, is
defendant
February 11, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 92-1747
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
SAMSON O. AGBOSASA,
Defendant, Appellant.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Francis R. Williams on brief for appellant.
___________________
Edwin J. Gale, United States Attorney, and
______________
Tamuleviz, Assistant United States Attorney, on
_________
appellee.
Charles A.
___________
brief for
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam.
__________
arrested
and
booked in
claims, was asked
The defendant, in the course
connection
of being
with fraudulent
income tax
routine booking question including
his social
security number.
He gave a false one and, despite his effort to
suppress the statement, was charged
and convicted of deceptively
misrepresenting his social security number.
We find no merit in
defendant
element
his
of
therefore
social security
the crime
was
was
the
"designed
within the meaning
n.14 (1990).
defendant's argument that asking
number
agents
to
had reason
elicit
involvement
to
to an
suspect" and
incriminatory
of Pennsylvania v.
____________
When defendant was
suspected of
"related directly
admissions"
Muniz, 496 U.S. 582,
_____
602
arrested at the post office, he
in the
submission
of false
tax
refund claims in the names of Micheal M. Lerner and Jose A. Silva
in
violation of 18
defendant did not
U.S.C.
287.
which
as appears, however,
represent himself to be Lerner
have their social security numbers.
of his Miranda
_______
So far
or Silva or to
Instead, after being advised
rights, defendant denied
the post office box
to
the decoy refund checks had been sent was his, claimed the
box belonged to a friend, and said he did not know anything about
the
refund checks.
Consequently, by
deputy marshal asked
would not have
defendant his social security
number, they
reasonably expected that question, or its answer,
to implicate defendant
(the filing
the time the IRS agent and
of false
in the offenses then
income tax claims).
-2-
under investigation
In fact,
the answer
defendant
income
gave did not
tax
claims
implicate defendant in
charges.
completely separate offense
Instead, defendant
-- giving
designed
to
goad
408(g)(2)(1988).
into
marshal knew defendant was an illegal
_______
(indicating
that
certain
security number), and,
legal
offenses
then
under
no
may
obtain
deputy
422.104
a
social
answered the
neither implicated himself in
investigation
merit
number
U.S.C.
alien, 20 C.F.R.
in any event, had defendant
claims) nor violated 42 U.S.C.
Finding
42
the IRS agent or
aliens
question truthfully, he would have
the
408(g)(2)(1988).
violating
is no evidence
security
defendant his social security
defendant
There
committed
a false social
number with intent to deceive, 42 U.S.C.
Nor was asking
the filing false
(filing
false
refund
408 (g)(2)(1988).
in
summarily affirm the judgment below.
defendant's
Loc. R. 27.1.
argument,
we
-3-
