See United States v. Gonzalez-Mares, 762 F.2d 1485 (9th Cir.1985) (stating that “probation officer’s questions regarding the use of aliases and pi*ior convictions were a routine exercise of administrative responsibility” and upholding conviction when false statements to probation officer “impaired the basic functioning of the probation department”); United States v. Plasceneia-Orozco, 768 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir.1985) (upholding a conviction of an individual who orally gave a false name to the magistrate at his arraignment stating “the magistrate’s inquiry of [defendant] as to his true identity was not an exercise of the magistrate’s judicial powers, but was a function of the magistrate’s administrative duties”); see also United States v. Barber, 881 F.2d 345, 350-51 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Masterpol, 940 F.2d at 766 (holding
holding that the plaintiffs administrative claims were not timely presented and noting that the fact that the decedents family decided to place their trust in the us attorneys office electing not to seek competent legal advice until much later does not alter that conclusion holding the court lacked jurisdiction where the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal on the attorneys fee issue because a supplemental notice of appeal is required for us to have jurisdiction over an attorneys fees issue that becomes final subsequent to the initial notice of appeal recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard holding the divesting of jurisdiction by the mailing of a certified copy of the order of remand does not preclude the award of attorneys fees and costs holding that defendants mailing of false recommendation letters to us attorneys office on behalf of another defendant was covered by  1001 because facts presented a unique setting and one illsuited to regulation through the perjury statutes and because sentencing recommendations are within jurisdiction of us attorneys office