United States v. Hrcka , 384 F. App'x 232 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4919
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN HRCKA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00225-RJC-DCK-1)
Submitted: June 3, 2010 Decided: June 22, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal,
Assistant Federal Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Edward R. Ryan, United States Attorney, Mark A. Jones, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ivan Hrcka was convicted of one count of knowingly
possessing a passport with a false entry stamp, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) (2006) (Count One), and one count of
knowingly presenting a passport with a false entry stamp in
support of an immigration application, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1546(a) (Count Two). Hrcka claims the evidence was
insufficient to support Count One because his possession was not
knowing and the evidence supporting Count Two was insufficient
because the false entry stamp was not material. We reject both
claims and affirm.
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence, this court considers whether the evidence, when viewed
in the light most favorable to the Government, was sufficient
for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Stewart,
256 F.3d 231, 250 (4th Cir. 2001). If substantial evidence
exists to support a verdict, it must be sustained. Glasser, 315
U.S. at 80. This court does not review the credibility of
witnesses and assumes the factfinder resolved all contradictions
in the testimony in favor of the Government. United States v.
Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). “[A]n appellate court’s
reversal of a conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence
2
should be confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is
clear.” United States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir.
1984) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
18 U.S.C. § 1546 criminalizes the fraudulent use of
visas, permits and other documents. With respect to Count Two,
the statute criminalizes knowingly subscribing as true “any
false statement with respect to a material fact in any
application . . . or knowingly present[ing] any such
application, affidavit, or other document containing any such
false statement.” 18 U.S.C. § 1546 (emphasis added). A
falsehood is material if it has a natural tendency to influence
the decisions of the decision maker. Kungys v. United States,
485 U.S. 759, 772 (1988); see also United States v. Wu, 419 F.3d
142, 144 (2d Cir. 2005). We review a finding of materiality for
clear error. See United States v. Garcia-Ochoa, __ F.3d __, No.
09-4620(L), slip op. at 7 (4th Cir. June 11, 2010).
We find Hrcka’s false entry stamp on his passport was
clearly material as it was capable of influencing immigration
officials and bringing Hrcka closer to the relief he was
seeking. See Wu, 419 F.3d at 144-46; see also Garcia-Ochoa, No.
09-4620(L), slip op. at 11 (“[F]alse reporting of information
deemed important by the legislature and executive cannot lightly
be deemed unimportant by the courts.”). As was held in United
States v. Sebaggala, 256 F.3d 59, 65 (1st Cir. 2001), “if a
3
statement could have provoked governmental action, it is
material regardless of whether the agency actually relied upon
it.” Similarly, this court has stated that “a finding of
materiality is not dependant upon whether the fact finder was
actually influenced by a defendant’s false statements.” United
States v. Sarihifard, 155 F.3d 301, 307 (4th Cir. 1998).
Because the false entry stamp was material, we find there was
sufficient evidence supporting Count Two. We likewise find,
with respect to Count One, sufficient evidence supporting the
finding that Hrcka knowingly possessed an improperly altered
document.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4