in United States v. Frick, 492 F.2d 791 (5 Cir.1974), the court dismissed a challenge to the conviction of a defendant who continued to use his former alias on securities which moved in interstate commerce. The court stated: “Finally, appellant urges that he cannot be guilty of false making or forgery because he signed the checks with an alias which he believed he had the authority to use and on an account which he believed to be active. The short answer is, first, that the fact that he may have used the alias in and around New Orleans does not establish (nor is there other evidence establishing) that it was authorized as a name (and signature) to be honored on his Chicago bank account. ...” Id. at 792-93 (emphasis added). Cf. Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512 (4 Cir.1948) (<HOLDING>). The focus of our inquiry is whether Fon-tana,
holding that a security bearing a defendants own genuine signature is not a forgery and therefore does not come within  2314 which is read to equate falsely made with forged holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that a state university is not a person within the meaning of  1983 and therefore is not subject to suits brought under  1983 holding that an attorneys typewritten name on a pleading is not a signature for purposes of rule 11 and therefore does not subject him to sanctions holding that a typewritten name above the signature line is not a signature for frcp rule 11 purposes