USCA1 Opinion
February 16, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1817
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ROGER W. CORREIA, SR.,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Cyr, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Bjorn R. Lang, with whom Owen S. Walker was on brief for _______________ ________________
appellant.
Sheila W. Sawyer, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom _________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee. _______________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. After appellant Roger Correia, Sr., pled Per Curiam ___ ______
guilty to four counts of defrauding the Social Security Adminis-
tration ("SSA"), the district court enhanced his sentence pursu-
ant to U.S.S.G. 3C1.1. The sole issue on appeal is whether the
oath administered to appellant during the course of the fraud
investigation conducted by the United States Department of Health
and Human Services ("HHS") was authorized by law. We affirm.
The district court imposed a two-point upward adjust-
ment for attempting to obstruct or impede the administration of
justice during the HHS fraud investigation. The guideline
commentary makes a clear distinction between sworn and unsworn
statements. "Committing, suborning, or attempting to suborn
perjury" is specifically enumerated conduct to which the adjust-
ment applies. U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, comment. (n.3(b)).1 The only
question raised is whether the HHS inspectors were authorized to
administer an oath to appellant. See United States v. Debrow, ___ ______________ ______
346 U.S. 374, 377 (1953).
The instant HHS investigation was conducted in accor-
dance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, which establishes
inspectors general within, inter alia, the Department of Health _____ ____
____________________
1Perjury is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1621:
Whoever, having taken an oath before a com-
petent tribunal, officer, or person in any
case in which a law of the United States
authorizes an oath to be administered. . .
willfully and contrary to such oath states or
subscribes any material matter which he does
not believe to be true. . . is guilty of
perjury. . . .
2
and Human Services, "to conduct and supervise audits and investi-
gations relating to [its] programs and operations . . . ." 5
U.S.C. app. 3 2(1) (1994). The Inspector General of HHS is
empowered "to administer to or take from any person an oath,
affirmation, or affidavit whenever necessary in the performance _________ __ ___ ___________
of the functions assigned by this Act." Id. 6(a)(5) (emphasis __ ___ _________ ___
added).
Appellant's lone argument is that it was not "necessary
in the performance of the functions" assigned to the HHS to
administer an oath in investigating this case. This claim rings
especially hollow here, since appellant had lied to HHS investi-
gators during an earlier interview, thereby enabling him to
continue for almost two additional years to receive disability
payments to which he was not entitled.
As appellant was subject to a duly administered oath at
the time he willfully made materially false statements to the HHS
inspectors, the two-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 was
entirely proper.
AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED ________
3