USA V. JONATHAN OLIVER, No. 21-30137 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The district court revoked Defendant’s supervised release for violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1001(a) by submitting a monthly supervision report with false statements to his probation officer. Section 1001(a) bars lying “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.” Defendant argued that because the report was eventually forwarded to a judge, he’s entitled to the exemption in 18 U.S.C. Section 1001(b) for statements “submitted to a judge or magistrate” in a judicial proceeding.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release based on the Defendant committing a new crime, and the sentence imposed upon revocation. The court wrote that the judicial proceeding exception only protects statements made “by [the] party . . . to the judge or magistrate”—not statements made to others in the judicial branch. The court emphasized that taking an expansive view of “submission” would threaten to swallow the rule, and would undermine the will of Congress, which broadly proscribed false statements made in “any matter” of the “judicial branch.”
Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Defendant argued that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when it decided by the preponderance of the evidence that he violated Section 1001. The court wrote that because a sentence for a supervised release violation is generally part of the penalty for the original offense, it is not a new and additional punishment requiring jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release based on the defendant’s committing a new crime, and the sentence imposed upon revocation. The district court revoked the defendant’s supervised release for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) by submitting a monthly supervision report with false statements to his probation officer. Section 1001(a) bars lying “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.” The defendant argued that because the report was eventually forwarded to a judge, he’s entitled to the exemption in 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b) for statements “submitted to a judge or magistrate” in a judicial proceeding. Rejecting this argument, the panel wrote that the judicial proceeding exception only protects statements made “by [the] party . . . to the judge or magistrate”—not statements made to others in the judicial branch. The panel emphasized that taking an expansive view of “submission” would threaten to swallow the rule, and would undermine the will of Congress, which broadly proscribed false statements made in “any matter” of the “judicial branch.” Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), the defendant argued that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when it decided by the UNITED STATES V. OLIVER 3 preponderance of the evidence that he violated § 1001 and sentenced him under an enhanced Guidelines range based on the criminal violation. The panel wrote that this argument is foreclosed by precedent, explaining that because a sentence for a supervised release violation is generally part of the penalty for the original offense, it is not a new and additional punishment requiring jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
