Do Escobar's clarifications apply to the materiality requirement for False Statements prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(8)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The federal False Statements statute expressly applies only to a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. The Circuits disagree over the standard for proof of materiality in federal fraud prosecutions and disagree as to whether the “demanding” materiality requirement that necessitated clarification in Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 8.Ct. 1989, 1995 (2016) altered how rigorously that standard must be imposed. The questions presented are: 1. Do Escobar’s clarifications apply to the materiality requirement for False Statements prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(8)? 2. Do such clarifications demonstrate “an error of the most fundamental character” for coram nobis relief where, prior to a guilty plea, the Government did not allege that defendant’s false statements had any ability to influence the actual and where post-EHscobar case evidence showed those statements would have had no effect on the actual decisionmaker?