United States v. Hixon

Wesley Hixon (defendant) worked for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Hixon sustained a workplace injury that required four surgeries and rendered him unable to work because of his job’s requirement to walk on rough ground. Hixon was considered partially or totally disabled from the time of his injury to his return to work. In his application for temporary worker’s-compensation benefits, Hixon filled out four forms, on which Hixon affirmatively indicated he was not self-employed. The TVA began an investigation into Hixon after receiving tips that he had been employed while he received disability benefits. The investigation uncovered that Hixon was the sole owner of a Georgia corporation, Woods and Water Outdoor Consultants (WWOC), and worked for the business during the time he received benefits. Hixon served as WWOC’s president, treasurer, registered agent, and the only member of the board of directors. Hixon did not receive a salary but made income from commissions. Hixon was fired from the TVA due to his failure to properly report his activities to the government on the continuing-disability forms he submitted. Hixon also was charged with four counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for falsely stating he was not self-employed on each of the four forms and concealing his ownership of WWOC. It was undisputed that Hixon was a corporate officer of WWOC. Hixon moved for a judgment of acquittal on these charges, arguing he was not guilty as a matter of law because under Georgia and federal law he was a corporate officer of WWOC. Therefore, by law, Hixon was an employee of the corporation and not self-employed, and it was not false to state he was not self-employed. The district court denied the motion and instructed the jury to decide whether Hixon was self-employed based on the evidence presented. The court instructed the jury that it could disregard the existence of the corporation if the evidence indicated that in effect Hixon was one and the same as WWOC. Hixon appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.