USCA1 Opinion

February 14, 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________

No.

92-1747
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
SAMSON O. AGBOSASA,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this court

amended as follows.

issued on February 11,

Page 2, line 25, please insert after the word

"gave did not implicate defendant in the filing".

1994, is

defendant

February 11, 1994

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________

No. 92-1747

UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
SAMSON O. AGBOSASA,
Defendant, Appellant.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]

__________________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Francis R. Williams on brief for appellant.
___________________
Edwin J. Gale, United States Attorney, and
______________
Tamuleviz, Assistant United States Attorney, on
_________
appellee.

Charles A.
___________
brief for

__________________
__________________

Per Curiam.
__________
arrested

and

booked in

claims, was asked

The defendant, in the course

connection

of being

with fraudulent

income tax

routine booking question including

his social

security number.

He gave a false one and, despite his effort to

suppress the statement, was charged

and convicted of deceptively

misrepresenting his social security number.

We find no merit in
defendant
element

his
of

therefore

social security

the crime
was

was

the

"designed

within the meaning

n.14 (1990).

defendant's argument that asking

number

agents
to

had reason

elicit

involvement

to

to an

suspect" and

incriminatory

of Pennsylvania v.
____________

When defendant was

suspected of

"related directly

admissions"

Muniz, 496 U.S. 582,

_____

602

arrested at the post office, he

in the

submission

of false

tax

refund claims in the names of Micheal M. Lerner and Jose A. Silva

in

violation of 18

defendant did not

U.S.C.

287.

which

as appears, however,

represent himself to be Lerner

have their social security numbers.

of his Miranda
_______

So far

or Silva or to

Instead, after being advised

rights, defendant denied

the post office box

to

the decoy refund checks had been sent was his, claimed the

box belonged to a friend, and said he did not know anything about
the

refund checks.

Consequently, by

deputy marshal asked

would not have

defendant his social security

number, they

reasonably expected that question, or its answer,

to implicate defendant
(the filing

the time the IRS agent and

of false

in the offenses then

income tax claims).
-2-

under investigation
In fact,

the answer

defendant
income

gave did not

tax

claims

implicate defendant in

charges.

completely separate offense

Instead, defendant
-- giving

designed

to

goad

408(g)(2)(1988).

into

marshal knew defendant was an illegal

_______
(indicating

that

certain

security number), and,

legal

offenses

then

under

no

may

obtain

deputy

422.104
a

social

answered the

neither implicated himself in

investigation

merit

number

U.S.C.

alien, 20 C.F.R.

in any event, had defendant

claims) nor violated 42 U.S.C.

Finding

42

the IRS agent or

aliens

question truthfully, he would have

the

408(g)(2)(1988).

violating

is no evidence

security

defendant his social security

defendant

There

committed

a false social

number with intent to deceive, 42 U.S.C.

Nor was asking

the filing false

(filing

false

refund

408 (g)(2)(1988).
in

summarily affirm the judgment below.

defendant's
Loc. R. 27.1.

argument,

we

-3-