UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 22-1970 _______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR., Appellant _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00367-001) District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III _______________

Argued: April 10, 2024 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, PORTER and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Filed: August 21, 2024) Tadhg Dooley David R. Roth [Argued] WIGGIN & DANA One Century Tower 265 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Lydia Laramore [Argued] Evan Lisman [Argued] Laila Robbins YALE LAW SCHOOL 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 Counsel for Court-Appointed Amici Curiae Linwood C. Wright, Jr. [Argued] OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 615 Chestnut Street Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Appellee _______________

OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ PORTER, Circuit Judge.

Before we vacated Joseph Johnson’s criminal conviction and directed his acquittal, he spent fifteen months in federal prison. He now seeks compensation as a “person unjustly con-

2 victed of an offense against the United States and imprisoned.” 28 U.S.C. § 1495. But the District Court found that Johnson could not prove that “he did not by misconduct or neglect cause or bring about his own prosecution[,]” which is a requirement for receiving compensation under § 1495. 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a)(2).

We will affirm. Johnson committed “misconduct” by using a lawyer’s signature without her consent to file an exhibit in federal court, which was a but-for “cause” of the government’s decision to “prosecut[e]” him. If he had not filed the exhibit, the government would not have prosecuted him. He therefore cannot satisfy the requirements for compensation under § 2513(a).

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A plaintiff sued Bill Cosby for sexual assault in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Johnson, who was not involved with the case, filed an exhibit using a copy of the plaintiff’s lawyer’s signature without her consent. The Clerk’s Office added the exhibit to the docket. The exhibit contained a document accusing the plaintiff of underreporting her taxable income. The plaintiff’s lawyer rec- ognized the exhibit as fraudulent, and the presiding judge (the “Judge”) quickly struck it from the docket upon the lawyer’s request.

The government prosecuted Johnson for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and aggravated identity theft

3 under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.1 To convict Johnson for making a false statement under § 1001, the government was required to prove: “(1) that [Johnson] made a statement or representation; (2) that the statement or representation was false; (3) that the false statement was made knowingly and willfully; (4) that the statement or representation was material; and (5) that the state- ment or representation was made in a matter within the juris- diction of the federal government.” United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192, 213 (3d Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). To convict Johnson for aggravated identity theft under § 1028A, the gov- ernment was required to prove that Johnson made a false state- ment under § 1001. So for both counts, the government was required to prove the five elements articulated in Moyer, including the materiality of Johnson’s false statement.

A jury convicted Johnson on both counts, but we over- turned his conviction on direct appeal. See United States v. Johnson, 19 F.4th 248, 252 (3d Cir. 2021). On materiality, the gov