UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM WESLEY OZIER AND MALVIS IRENE OZIER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that there was substantial, material, and competent evidence to support the conviction for making false statements to the Small Business Administration.
Defendants were convicted of making false statements to the Small Business Administration to obtain a loan. They waived a jury trial and were found gu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal from their conviction on two counts of making false statements to the Small Business Administration to obtain a loan, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 645(a) (1976). They were tried before a federal District Court Judge, the jury being waived; were found guilty; and each was sentenced to two years of probation and a $2,000 fine.
On appeal appellants’ basic contention is that the evidence presented in relation to the two counts was insufficient to support the conviction. While we recognize that the case was decided on conflicting evidence, we do not consider these conflicts de novo. United States v. Luxenberg, 374 F. 2d 241 (6th Cir. 1967). We do find substantial, material and competent evidence to support the findings of guilt by the District Judge.
Further, we find no error in the fact that at the conclusion of argument on defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal, Judge Gubow proposed to both counsel that each should concurrently submit findings of fact and conclusions of law within 10 days, which suggestion was agreed upon by both counsel for defense and the government. Under these circumstances, we find no denial of or prejudice to defendants’ rights to have a closing argument made in their behalf.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.