from travels abroad, Palzer had been presented with and filled out the modified version of Customs Form 6059-B, which included the notice that it was not illegal to transport money in excess of $5000. See supra note 5. A reasonable jury could infer that Pal-zer read and understood that form. See United States v. Satterfield, 644 F.2d at 1094-95. Second, Palzer’s own statement to Customs officers after the discovery of the $200,000—“What’s the big deal anyway? ... [G]ive me the form right now and I’ll fill it out”—supports a reasonable inference that he did not believe that carrying the money into the country was against the law. These two factors viewed in the light most favorable to the government, were sufficient to meet the government’s burden of proof on the elem t. June 18, 1984) (<HOLDING>). We reject this argument without considering
holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial holding that form 4790 is not an administrative rule but is merely incidental to the statute and regulations and therefore false statements on the form can lead to criminal prosecution holding that the use of the written form is mandatory and that failure to use the written form as mandated is reversible error holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract holding that a defendant who deliberately avoids reading the form he is signing cannot avoid criminal sanctions for any false statements contained therein