United States v. Janos Urban , 154 F. App'x 132 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
November 1, 2005
No. 05-10502 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-20629-CR-PCH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JANOS URBAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 1, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Janos Urban appeals his convictions for one count of conspiracy to commit
an offense against the United States, that is, possessing counterfeited securities of
organizations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and 15 counts of possession of
counterfeited securities of organizations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a).
The only issue he raises on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to
support each of the convictions. In reviewing a conviction for sufficiency of the
evidence, we examine the evidence de novo in the light most favorable to the
government, to determine whether a reasonable jury could have concluded beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crimes charged. United
States v. Toler, 144 F.3d 1423, 1428 (11th Cir. 1998).
To support a conviction of conspiracy, the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that there was an agreement to commit an unlawful act and that
the alleged conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
United States v. Sarro, 742 F.2d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 1984). Evidence of a
preexisting relationship among conspirators may be a factor in determining
whether a conspiracy existed. United States v. Pantoja-Soto, 739 F.2d 1520, 1525
(11th Cir. 1984). Furthermore, “[i]nferences from the conduct of the alleged
participants or from other circumstantial evidence of a scheme may provide the
basis for establishing that a conspiratorial agreement existed.” Id.; see also United
2
States v. Villegas, 911 F.2d 623, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that participation in
a criminal conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence). Moreover, a
defendant can be convicted of participation in a conspiracy even though his
participation in the scheme is slight by comparison to the actions of other co-
conspirators, so long as the defendant’s intent to participate is proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Toler, 144 F.3d at 1428. To support a charge of possession of
counterfeit securities, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that,
the defendant: (1) possessed; (2) with intent to deceive; (3) a counterfeit or forged
security; (4) of an organization. 18 U.S.C. § 513(a); see e.g. United States v.
Prosperi, 201 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2000).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
discern no reversible error. Evidence introduced against Urban, if believed,
showed: that he handed bags containing counterfeit certificates and receipts to
alleged co-conspirator Horvath at a mall, that he was carrying counterfeit receipts
when he was detained, that he lied to investigators concerning his relationship to
Horvath and about how he had gotten to the mall, that he and Hovarth traveled
around the country together, that he told Hovath while they were detained not to
stop answering the investigators’ questions, and that he possessed counterfeit
certificates and receipts in his motel room. That evidence is sufficient for a
3
reasonable jury to find Urban guilty of the crimes with which he was charged.
AFFIRMED.
4