United States v. Manning

I respectfully dissent. The majority’s scholarly analysis is impressive but not persuasive to me in the end. I agree instead with the analysis of the district judge in this case and the panel majority in United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075 (2007), reh’g den., 522 F.3d 904 (9th Cir.2008).

The government chose to prosecute Manning under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, eschewing the opportunity to proceed under a statute that would avoid the issue we now face.1 Limited to language applicable in this case, section 1001(a)(2) prohibits any person from making a materially false statement or representation in…