has indicated that this duty is a formality and that, absent reason to believe the defendant was prejudiced by the oversight, the absence of the foreperson's signature affords no basis for relief. See Hobby v. United States, 468 U.S. 339, 345, 104 S.Ct. 3093, 82 L.Ed.2d 260 (1984) (a “foreman’s duty to sign the indictment is a formality, for the absence of the foreman’s signature is a mere technical irregularity that is not necessarily fatal to the indictment.”); see also Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163-64, 15 S.Ct. 586, 39 L.Ed. 657 (1895). 4 . Although we have not addressed this question directly, several other Circuits have held that § 1542 does not require that the alleged false statement be "materially false.” See United States v. Hasan, 586 F.3d 161, 167 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Ramos, 725 F.2d
holding that 18 usc  1014 has no materiality requirement because the statute does not so much as mention materiality holding that the fca includes a materiality requirement holding that unlike  1001  1542 does not have a materiality requirement holding that materiality is not an element of  1542 because any false statement is sufficient holding that materiality necessary element of section 1001