NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 03 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30138
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00049-JLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JIAN LI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 9, 2012**
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior
District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior United States District Judge
for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Jian Li appeals his conviction for making a false statement or representation to
the United States government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We reject his
arguments and affirm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review a district court’s interpretation of a statute de novo. United States
v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622, 624-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Whether a person is
in custody and thus is entitled to Miranda warnings is a “mixed question of law and
fact warranting de novo review.” United States v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879, 883 (9th
Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). “The admission of statements made in
violation of a person’s Miranda rights is reviewed for harmless error.” United States
v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Butler, 249
F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2001)).
A statement or representation is material for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)
if it is “calculated to induce action or reliance” by another or “has a natural tendency
to influence” another’s decisions. United States v. De Rosa, 783 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th
Cir. 1986). A false statement need not actually influence a government agency nor
need the agency actually rely on a false statement for it to be material. United States
v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1545 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Vaughn, 797 F.2d
2
1485, 1490 (9th Cir. 1986). Li’s false statements to Officer Harms and presentation
of a passport obtained by fraudulent means are material for purposes of § 1001(a)(2).
The evidence presented to the district court was sufficient for it to conclude that
Li obtained the passport by fraudulent means in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, and Li
does not appeal that conviction. Li presented the passport to gain admission to the
United States under the guise of a person with a different name and date of birth. This
is sufficient to constitute a false representation to the United States government for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).
Finally, because Li’s presentation of a fraudulently obtained passport also
constitutes a materially false representation, even if Li’s statements to Officer Harms
were admitted in violation of Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, the admission would be
harmless error.
AFFIRMED.
3