USA v. Steven Demaria

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Steven Michael Demaria. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-12652

Date Filed: 02/29/2016

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12652
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60280-BB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVEN MICHAEL DEMARIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 29, 2016)

Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-12652

Date Filed: 02/29/2016

Page: 2 of 4

Steven Michael Demaria appeals his convictions, after a jury trial, on three
counts of making false representations of material fact, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001(a)(2). Demaria asserts that, while he admittedly did not answer question
18(n) of the Medical Certification Application (MCA) truthfully, the Government
presented no evidence that his false statements were material to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). He contends there is no evidence to show he
would have been denied a medical certificate or otherwise been hindered from
flying had he answered question 18(n) truthfully. He also argues that, even though
he did not answer question 18(n) truthfully, the FAA was aware or should have
been aware of his failed drug test. After review,1 we affirm Demaria’s convictions.
To sustain a conviction against a defendant for a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001, the government must prove: “(1) that the defendant made a false statement;
(2) that the statement was material; (3) that the defendant acted with specific intent
to mislead; and (4) that the matter was within the purview of a federal government
agency.” United States v. McCarrick, 294 F.3d 1286, 1290 (11th Cir. 2002).

1

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based
on sufficiency of evidence grounds. United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1296 (11th Cir.
2013). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask whether, after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, with all reasonable inferences and credibility
choices made in the government’s favor, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236, 1244
(11th Cir. 2009).

2

Case: 15-12652

Date Filed: 02/29/2016

Page: 3 of 4

A statement is considered material “if it has a natural tendency to influence,
or was capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it
was addressed.” Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1998). We have
held the Government is not required to prove that the statement had actual
influence; rather, the false statement “must simply have the capacity to impair or
pervert the functioning of a government agency.” United States v. Boffil-Rivera,
607 F.3d 736, 741 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). Thus, the statement does
not have to be relied upon and “can be material even if it is ignored and never
read.” Id. at 742.
The evidence was sufficient to support Demaria’s convictions on all counts,
and, specifically, to show that his false statements were material. The Government
provided ample evidence to show that Demaria’s false statement had the capacity
to impair or pervert the functioning of the FAA, a government agency. Evidence
presented at trial showed the FAA’s medical accreditation procedure intensifies if
an applicant answers a question on the MCA in the affirmative and that Demaria’s
failure to truthfully answer 18(n) prevented the FAA from engaging in their more
intense screening procedure, impairing their medical accreditation procedure.
The Government also offered evidence that the Airman Medical Examiner
(AME) is not an FAA employee and does not have access to a pilot’s previous
answers to Form 8500; therefore, an AME can only base his decision whether to
3

Case: 15-12652

Date Filed: 02/29/2016

Page: 4 of 4

grant a medical certificate upon what the applicant tells him. Because the AME
immediately issues its medical certification during the pilot’s visit with the AME,
even if the FAA eventually catches the false answer, for some period of time, the
pilot is permitted to fly based on his falsehood. Thus, the evidence presented at
trial could be found by a rational trier of fact to show that Demaria’s false
statement tended to impair the FAA operations by hindering their self-disclosurebased medical accreditation process.
Accordingly, we affirm Demaria’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.

4