Williams v. United States

PETITIONER: Williams
RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: North Haven Public School

DOCKET NO.: 80-2116
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

CITATION: 458 US 279 (1982)
ARGUED: Apr 20, 1982
DECIDED: Jun 29, 1982

ADVOCATES:
Nickolas P. Chilivis - on behalf of the Petitioner
Richard G. Wilkins - on behalf of the United States

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Williams v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 20, 1982 in Williams v. United States

Warren E. Burger:

We will hear arguments next in Williams against the United States.

Mr. Chilivis, I think you may proceed whenever you are ready.

Nickolas P. Chilivis:

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

This case is here on writ of certiorari to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The general questions presented are: whether the Congress, in passing Section 1014 of Title XVIII of the United States Code intended to proscribe the deposit of a bad check or 1014.

In this case there were three counts of an indictment and Mr. Williams, the Petitioner, was convicted on all three counts.

The first count was a misapplication count and really is only indirectly in issue in this case.

The other two counts both involved an allegation of the overvaluation of a security, that is a check, in order to influence the action of a federally... excuse me... insured bank on an advance or extension of credit.

All three counts were under 1014?

Nickolas P. Chilivis:

Two counts.

Two counts.

Nickolas P. Chilivis:

Yes, sir.

Now, in this case the Court has limited the consideration on certiorari to two counts, counts two and three.

But I think it's significant that we consider what counts two and three were.

Count two was the overvaluation of 58,500 which was deposited, drawn on the Winn State Bank and deposited in the Pelican State Bank.

At a time when there were no funds to support it?

Nickolas P. Chilivis:

At a time when there were insufficient funds to support it, yes, sir.

And the Government--

That would have something to do with its value, wouldn't it?

Nickolas P. Chilivis:

--Yes, sir.

It was a check that did not have funds to support it, yes, sir.

Now, that check did clear the bank in the normal course of things.

It was not dishonored; it was paid, and it never came back.

The other check was a $60,000 check drawn on the Pelican State Bank, which was deposited in the Winn State Bank, and that covered the first check.

That check too was paid by the bank and was not returned for insufficient funds, although at the time it was deposited there were not funds in the bank sufficient to cover it.

Now, the Pelican State Bank, which was where it all started, had the choice in that instance of bouncing the check or extending credit on the check, which resulted in an overdraft.

It chose to extend credit and have an overdraft.

Now, when this transaction started Williams had an overdraft at the Pelican State Bank.

Now, we ask the Court to bear in mind that this started off with an overdraft at the Pelican State Bank on May the 9th of something over $58,000.

The whole transaction ended on May the 11th, two days later, with an overdraft at the Pelican State Bank of something less than $60,000.