that many of their witnesses would be unable to appear in this District while they would appear in the Southern District of Ohio. 6 . The Assistant United States Attorney has provided us with the memorandum that the USMS General Counsel sent him, in which that counsel cites to three district court cases that have held that only one-way transport is authorized (that is, neither return transport nor lodging can be provided, though one-way transport and subsistence on the road can be). The General Counsel also included a citation to a 1990 District of Maryland case which held that it is a criminal violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act for a judge to order the USMS to pay transport expenses not authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 4285, see United States v. Nave, 733 F.Supp. 1002, 1003 (D.Md.1990) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The AO does not in its annual
holding that under the antideficiency act 18 usc  1341 a court should not order the expenditure of government funds in the absence of statutory authority for such expenditure and that were a court to do so the judge could conceivably be open to criminal prosecution under 31 usc  1350 a situation that might mildly amuse some but which ought to be avoided if possible holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 holding that in a criminal mail fraud prosecution under 18 usc  1341 where proof of specific intent is required it may be found from a material misstatement of fact made with reckless disregard for truth holding that submitting false claims to the government could be charged under either the false claims act 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 because nothing in the statutory language of the relevant statutory provisions provided any evidence of an intent to withdraw from one statute a coverage it obviously has standing alone because of a coverage also afforded by another statute holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc  3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release  unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc  3583d