United States of America v. Saul J. Morris

*The Honorable Dan A. Polster, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
1
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0043P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 00a0043p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
UNITED S TATES OF AMERICA ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
S AUL J. M ORRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
;>

1
No. 99-1798
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 98-80372—Patrick J. Duggan, District Judge.
Argued: December 10, 1999
Decided and Filed: February 7, 2000
Before: BOGGS and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges;
POLSTER*, District Judge.

-- 1 of 4 --

2 United States v. Morris No. 99-1798
_________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Richard M. Helfrick, FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDERS OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.
Karen L. Reynolds, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Detroit,
Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Richard M. Helfrick,
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, Detroit,
Michigan, for Appellant. Paul Burakoff, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM. Defendant Saul J. Morris appeals from his
judgment of conviction for misusing a United States Coast
Guard certificate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197. The issue
on appeal is whether Defendant’s misuse of a copy of an
illegally obtained United States Coast Guard certificate of
registry certifying Defendant as a marine physician assistant
constitutes a violation of § 2197. We AFFIRM.
I.
In January 1991, Defendant submitted an application to the
United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) for a certificate of
registry attesting to his qualifications as a marine physician
assistant. Defendant was not entitled to the certificate,
however, and obtained it by fraudulently providing false
information to the USCG in support of his application.
In 1994 and 1995, Defendant submitted applications at
three different health care providers. Defendant supplied two
prospective employers with a copy of his USCG certificate.
Defendant supplied a third with the serial number of the
certificate.

-- 2 of 4 --

6 United States v. Morris No. 99-1798
this reason, we reject Defendant’s superficial analogies to
other statutes.
Furthermore, as pointed out by the Government, § 2197
also proscribes illegally “exhibiting” a federal certificate. To
give effect to both words, it follows that “use” should be
interpreted in a broader sense such as utilizing the certificate
in ways other than merely displaying the original certificate or
showing it to others. See Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods.
v. NBD Bank, N.A., 98 F.3d 904, 909 (6th Cir. 1996) (stating
that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes that render
words superfluous); Barker v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R., 959
F.2d 1361, 1367 (6th Cir. 1992) (stating that courts should
endeavor to give effect to each word of the statute if possible).
Defendant, by submitting either a copy of the certificate or its
serial number, thus “used” the certificate in applying for
employment as proof of his professional qualification for the
position he sought.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 99-1798 United States v. Morris 3
On May 20, 1998, Defendant pled guilty to an information
charging him with Misuse of a Federal Certificate in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2197. On September 29, 1998, Defendant
withdrew his guilty plea and waiver of indictment. A grand
jury returned an indictment on December 3, 1998, charging
him with three counts of Misuse of a Federal Certificate in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197. After a bench trial, the district
court found Defendant guilty on all counts.
Defendant was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment.
He timely appeals.
II.
Section 2197 of Title 18 of the United States Code
provides, in pertinent part, that:
Whoever, not being lawfully entitled thereto, uses,
exhibits, or attempts to use or exhibit, . . . any certificate
. . . issued to . . . seamen by any officer or employee of
the United States authorized by law to issue the same . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
18 U.S.C.A. § 2197 (West 1984).
The present case involves a question of statutory
interpretation and is, therefore, subject to de novo review. See
United States v. Hans, 921 F.2d 81, 82 (6th Cir. 1990).
Defendant concedes that he was not lawfully entitled to the
USCG Certificate of Registry certifying him to be a marine
physician assistant because he obtained the certificate by
fraud. Defendant further admits that the Certificate was
issued by an officer or employee of the United States
authorized by law to issue it. The sole issue on appeal is
whether Defendant’s use of a copy of the Certificate is subject
to punishment under § 2197. Defendant contends that the
statute does not prohibit the misuse of a “copy” of a federal
certificate.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 United States v. Morris No. 99-1798
In support of his argument, Defendant points out that in
§ 2197, Congress prohibits the use of many different types of
documents. For example, the statute provides that anyone
who “alters . . . by addition, interpolation, deletion, or
erasures” violates the statute. Further, the use of “altered,
changed, forged, counterfeit . . . [or] blank forms” is
prohibited by the statute. From this, Defendant posits that
“Congress clearly foresaw the need to prohibit the use of
many types of non-original documents in the very statute
under consideration. This makes the omission of any
prohibition on the use of a “copy” all the more significant
since Congress prohibits the use of copies of other types of
documents.”
Defendant adds that, when Congress wishes to criminalize
the use of a “copy” of a document or thing, it can, and has,
expressed its intent in the statute. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C.A.
§§ 922(v)(1) (West Supp. 1999) (making it unlawful to
possess a semiautomatic assault weapon) and 921(a)(30)
(West Supp. 1999) (defining “semiautomatic assault weapon”
as “any of the firearms or copies or duplicates of the firearms
in any caliber, . . . .” (emphasis added)); 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1015(c) (West Supp. 1999) (providing that “[w]hoever uses
or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of
intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of
citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization,
or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have
been procured by fraud or false evidence . . . .” ); 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1905 (West 1999) (“Whoever, being an officer or employee
of the United States or of any department or agency thereof
. . . permits any income return or copy thereof . . . to be seen
or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall
be fined under this title . . . .”); 18 U.S.C.A. § 2318(a) (West
Supp. 1999) (“Whoever, . . . knowingly traffics in a
counterfeit label affixed or designed to be affixed to a phono
record, or a copy of a computer program or documentation or
packaging for a computer program, or a copy of a motion
picture . . . knowingly traffics in counterfeit documentation or
packaging for a computer program, shall be fined under this
title . . . .”).
No. 99-1798 United States v. Morris 5
In rejecting Defendant’s arguments, the district court ruled
that:
The Court . . . concludes[] that by submitting a copy of
the Certificate, defendant was using the Certificate.
Clearly the information on the copy of the Certificate
came from the original Certificate and there is no doubt
that defendant was intending to convey the information
on the original Certificate to the prospective employers
by sending a copy of the Certificate.
Defendant argues that because other statutes
specifically use the word “copy” or “copies,” the Court
should conclude that because 18 U.S.C. § 2197 does not
contain such words, Congress did not intend that a use of
a “copy” would be a violation of the statute. The fact
that Congress specifically included the words, “copy” or
“copies” in a statute relating to the unlawful possession
of a semi-automatic assault weapon, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(c)(v)(1) and 921(a)(30), or because Congress
specifically included the word “copy” in 18 U.S.C.
§ 1015(c) (improper use of a naturalization certificate),
or 18 U.S.C. § 1905 (prohibiting improper disclosure of
income tax returns) does not persuade this Court that the
failure to specifically include the word “copy” in 18
U.S.C. § 2197 suggests a Congressional intent not to
prohibit the misuse of a copy of a Certificate.
We agree with the district court. By providing prospective
employers with a copy of the federal certificate or its serial
number in order to procure a job, Defendant made use of the
certificate itself or, more specifically, the information
contained therein. In this instance, the copy was the
functional equivalent of the original for the purposes
Defendant employed it. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 1003 (stating that
a duplicate of an original writing is admissible as evidence to
the same extent as an original unless there is a genuine
question as to the original’s authenticity or it would otherwise
be unfair to admit the duplicate instead of the original). For

-- 4 of 4 --