F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
APR 4 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4112
MICHAEL S. KOVACH,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
(D.C. No. 98-CR-558-C)
Dixon D. Hindley, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the appellant.
Mark Vincent, Assistant United States Attorney (Paul M. Warner, United States
Attorney, and Leshia M. Lee-Dixon, Assistant United States Attorney, on the
brief), of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the appellee.
Before BRISCOE, ANDERSON, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Michael Kovach appeals his conviction for uttering and
possessing counterfeit securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). We exercise
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
I.
In September 1998, the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)
began investigating the break-in of residential and business mailboxes in the
south end of the Salt Lake Valley. A representative from a doctor’s office in
Murray, Utah, contacted USPIS and reported that a check in the amount of
$1,611.96 sent to the doctor’s office by the IHC Health Plan had been stolen and
negotiated at a local bank. The check was issued out of the Salt Lake City IHC
office. The USPIS determined that four counterfeit copies of the check had been
presented at separate Key Bank branches. In each instance, the check was made
payable to Michael S. Kovach and negotiated with a Utah identification number
belonging to Kovach. The USPIS also determined that Kovach’s fingerprints
were on three of the four counterfeit checks.
A criminal complaint was filed in federal district court charging Kovach in
one count with knowingly uttering and possessing four counterfeit securities of
an organization, IHC Health Plan, with intent to deceive another person and an
organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). Kovach was subsequently
indicted on the same charge.
Kovach moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, arguing
“[t]he indictment fail[ed] to show that the alleged prohibited conduct had a
2
sufficient connection with or effect on interstate commerce to invoke federal
jurisdiction.” ROA, Vol. I, Doc. 22. After a hearing, the district court denied
the motion and scheduled the case for trial. Kovach entered a conditional plea of
guilty to the single count charged in the indictment, specifically reserving the
right to appeal the “issues raised in his motion to dismiss.” Id. , Doc. 45, at 4. In
the written plea agreement, the parties stipulated that (1) Kovach negotiated the
four counterfeit checks from IHC Health Plan; (2) IHC Health Plan was a “non-
profit corporation which handle[d] the insurance aspects of medical services
offered to those individuals who carr[ied] IHC Health Plan Insurance”; (3)
“[p]hysicians who participate[d] in the IHC plan [we]re in Idaho and Utah”; and
(4) Key Bank was a national banking organization with offices throughout the
United States. Id. at 4-5. Kovach was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 16
months, followed by a 36-month period of supervised release.
II.
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a)
Kovach argues that 18 U.S.C. § 513(a) is unconstitutional in light of
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), because it fails to prohibit conduct
affecting interstate commerce. The district court rejected Kovach’s argument.
Because the question is a purely legal one, we apply a de novo standard of review.
See United States v. Boyd, 149 F.3d 1062, 1065 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
3
119 S. Ct. 2024 (1999).
In Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the Gun Free
School Zones Act (GFSZA), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(a), a statute which forbade
“‘any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place [he] kn[ew] . . . [wa]s a
school zone.’” 514 U.S. at 551 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A)). In reaching
this conclusion, the Court emphasized that Congress’ authority under the
Commerce Clause extended to only three categories of activity: (1) “the use of the
channels of interstate commerce”; (2) “the instrumentalities of interstate
commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce”; and (3) “those activities
having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that
substantially affect interstate commerce.” Id. at 558-59. Because the GFSZA did
not require proof of any of these three interstate jurisdictional nexuses, the Court
held that the statute was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce
Clause authority. Id. at 559.
The question here is whether the statute under which Kovach was charged,
18 U.S.C. § 513(a), requires proof of at least one of the three interstate
jurisdictional nexuses identified in Lopez. The statute provides in pertinent part:
Whoever makes, utters or possesses a counterfeited security of . . . an
organization, or whoever makes, utters or possesses a forged security
of . . . an organization, with intent to deceive another person,
organization, or government shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.
4
18 U.S.C. § 513(a). Further, 18 U.S.C. § 513(c) provides:
For purposes of this section--
...
(4) the term “organization” means a legal entity, other than a
government, established or organized for any purpose, and includes a
corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company,
foundation, institution, society, union, or any other association of persons
which operates in or the activities of which affect interstate or foreign
commerce.
In light of this definition, we have little trouble concluding that § 513(a)
falls within the third category of activity outlined in Lopez, i.e., “those activities
that substantially affect interstate commerce.” To prove a violation of section
513(a), the government must demonstrate that a defendant uttered or possessed a
counterfeited or forged security of a legal entity “which operates in or the
activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce.” In other words, the
statute contains a jurisdictional element which ensures, through a case-by-case
inquiry, that the crime in question involves the forging or counterfeiting of
securities of an economic enterprise engaged in interstate commerce. See Lopez,
514 U.S. at 561. Because such securities are closely linked to the operation of
such “organizations,” criminal activity involving those securities necessarily
affects interstate commerce.
Although we believe the amount at issue in this case (approximately
$6,400) was significant, our conclusion would be the same even if the amount
were considered de minimis. The point is that criminal activity violating § 513(a),
5
when considered in the aggregate, clearly has a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. See United States v. Ables, 167 F.3d 1021, 1029 (6th Cir.)
(concluding that, even after Lopez, government need prove only that particular
transaction at issue had a de minimis effect on interstate commerce), cert. denied,
119 S. Ct. 2378 (1999); United States v. Ripinsky, 109 F.3d 1436, 1444 (9th Cir.
1997) (holding that jurisdictional element of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 was satisfied if
each individual financial transaction “ha[d] a minimal effect on interstate
commerce that, through repetition by others similarly situated, could have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce”); United States v. Leslie, 103 F.3d
1093, 1100 (2d Cir. 1997) (concluding that federal statute prohibiting laundering
of monetary instruments regulated activities which, in the aggregate, had a
substantial effect on interstate commerce); United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396,
399 (10th Cir. 1995) (concluding that, even after Lopez, the government need
show only a de minimis effect on interstate commerce to support a Hobbs Act
conviction). Indeed, Congress concluded as much when it enacted § 513 in 1984.
See S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 653 (1983) (noting that the purpose of § 513 was to
“combat widespread fraud schemes involving the use of counterfeit . . . corporate
securities” that have “a serious detrimental effect on interstate commerce”).
For these reasons, we conclude the statute represents a valid exercise of
6
Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. 1 Thus, the fact that the statute may impact
an area traditionally reserved to the states is irrelevant. See Gregory v. Ashcroft,
501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991) (“As long as it is acting within the powers granted it
under the Constitution, Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress
may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States.”).
Sufficiency of indictment
Kovach contends the indictment filed against him was insufficient and
should have been dismissed because it failed to adequately allege an interstate
commerce nexus. Questions regarding the sufficiency of an indictment are
reviewed by this court de novo. United States v. Dashney, 117 F.3d 1197, 1205
(10th Cir. 1997).
To pass constitutional muster, an indictment must contain all the essential
elements of the charged offense. See United States v. Brown, 995 F.2d 1493,
1505 (10th Cir. 1993). This rule derives from both the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments. See United States v. Fern, 155 F.3d 1318, 1325 (11th Cir. 1998);
United States v. Schramm, 75 F.3d 156, 163 (3d Cir. 1996). In particular, the rule
1
T he statute also criminalizes the possession or utterance of a
counterfeited or forged security of a State or political subdivision thereof.
Because Kovach was not charged under this portion of the statute, we have not
analyzed whether that portion represents a constitutional exercise of Congress’
Commerce Clause authority.
7
ensures that a grand jury has found probable cause to support all the necessary
elements of the crime. Fern, 155 F.3d at 1325. Further, the rule enables a
defendant “to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the
same offense.” Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974). Finally, the
rule helps ensure that a defendant receives fair notice of the charges against
which he must defend. Id. “It is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth
the offense in the words of the statute itself, as long as ‘those words of
themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity,
set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be
punished.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 612 (1882)).
The indictment against Kovach charged as follows:
On or about September 22, 1998, in the Central Division of the
District of Utah, MICHAEL S. KOVACH, the defendant herein, did
knowingly utter and possess four (4) counterfeit securities of an
organization, to wit: IHC Health Plan account no. 124000737, check
no. 860632, with the intent to deceive another person and an
organization; all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a).
ROA, Vol. I, Doc. 10. Because the indictment did not directly allege a
connection between IHC Health Plan and interstate commerce, the critical
question is whether its use of the statutory term “organization,” and its
description of IHC Health Plan as an “organization,” are sufficient to satisfy the
necessary jurisdictional nexus.
In United States v. Wicks, 187 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 1999), a case involving
8
strikingly similar facts and arguments 2, the Fourth Circuit held that the term
“organization,” as used in § 513(a), is a term of art defined to refer only to
entities that operate in or affect interstate or foreign commerce. Id. at 428. Thus,
the Fourth Circuit held, the use of this term of art in an indictment charging a
violation of § 513(a) is adequate, without more, to charge the interstate commerce
element. Id. In other words, the court held, an indictment need not also include
the component parts of this term of art (i.e., that the organization is one operating
in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce). Id.
We agree with the holding in Wicks. Section 513 defines the term
“organization” to mean “a legal entity, other than a government, established or
organized for any purpose, . . . which operates in or the activities of which affect
interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 513(c)(4). This definition, which is
narrower than the common definition of the word “organization,” “is not merely a
generic or descriptive term, but a legal term of art” which expressly incorporates
the interstate commerce element of the statute. Hamling, 418 U.S. at 118.
Because this definition is applicable to all indictments charging a violation of §
2
The defendant in Wicks was indicted on two counts of possessing forged
securities in violation of § 513(a). Like the indictment at issue here, the
indictment in Wicks simply alleged that the defendant, “with intent to deceive
another person, did possess a forged security of an organization, that is, a check
purporting to be a genuine check of Comdata Network, Inc., in the amount of
$3,000.00.” 187 F.3d at 428.
9
513(a), its use is “sufficiently definite in legal meaning to give a defendant notice
of the charge against him,” id., even if the “various component parts of the
[statutory] definition of” organization are not specifically alleged in the
indictment. Id. at 119.
We conclude the indictment filed against Kovach was constitutionally
sufficient. By describing IHC Health Plan as an “organization,” the indictment
effectively alleged the interstate commerce element, even though it did not parrot
the component parts of the statutory definition. In other words, the indictment
placed Kovach on notice that he uttered and possessed counterfeit securities of a
specifically named entity that operated in or affected interstate or foreign
commerce. The indictment fairly informed Kovach of the charge against which
he had to defend and enabled him to assert a double jeopardy defense to any
future prosecution for the same offense.
Effect on interstate commerce
Finally, Kovach argues that his conviction must be reversed because his
conduct did not affect interstate commerce. In particular, Kovach points out that
“[a]ll of [his] conduct was purely local and occurred wholly within the state of
Utah,” and “[a]ll persons, things and organizations involved were at all times
located within the state of Utah.” Kovach’s Opening Brief, at 5.
10
The initial problem with Kovach’s argument is that it was never ruled upon
by the district court. Although Kovach attempted to argue at the hearing on his
motion to dismiss that the government could not prove his conduct affected
interstate commerce, the district court specifically refused to reach the issue,
indicating it was a matter of proof for trial. ROA, Vol. II, at 2 (“What I don’t
want you to argue because it’s just something I don’t think I can think about is
that they couldn’t show it, because I have to wait until trial.”); id. at 3 (“It’s
just–what I don’t think–I don’t think you’d be spending your time wisely doing,
. . . would be arguing that the government can’t show an interstate nexus, because
it seems to me that’s something that we’ll see at trial.”); id. at 12 (“As far as
whether the government can establish the necessary interstate nexus, that’s a
matter of proof. And I can tell you, Mr. Hindley, I know you’ll be watching for it
if we go to trial, and I will too.”). Absent extraordinary circumstances, this court
will not consider an issue on appeal that was not decided first in the district court.
Pell v. Azar Nut Co., 711 F.2d 949, 950 (10th Cir. 1983) (citing Singleton v.
Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976)).
Even assuming, arguendo, that Kovach has demonstrated extraordinary
circumstances justifying appellate review of the issue, it is apparent, under the
stipulated facts, that Kovach’s conduct satisfied the necessary interstate nexus. In
particular, Kovach stipulated that IHC Health Plan, the “organization” whose
11
check was counterfeited, regularly made payments to Plan physicians in both Utah
and Idaho. Thus, Kovach effectively conceded that IHC Health Plan was an
entity that operated in interstate commerce by making payments to physicians in
Utah and Idaho for health care services performed in those states.
III.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
12