United States v. Herring
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
916 F.2d 1543 (1990)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Dennis Herring (defendant) began working for a construction company on January 12, 1987. Two days later, Herring applied for unemployment-insurance benefits from the Georgia Department of Labor, falsely stating that he was unemployed the week prior to his application. Herring made four additional requests for unemployment insurance while still employed and received a total of $870 in benefits. The secretary of labor had approval authority over Georgia’s unemployment program and provided federal funding to Georgia for administrative costs. The US Department of Labor investigated state unemployment-insurance programs. During the investigation, the department discovered Herring’s false statements. Herring was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of knowingly and willfully making false statements to an agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Herring pleaded guilty and moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of federal jurisdiction because he made the false statements to a state agency. The district court found for the government (plaintiff) and refused to dismiss the indictment. Herring appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hatchett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.