US v. Ivan Hrcka
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
June 3, 2010
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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) presenting (2006) a (Count with One), a and one entry count stamp of 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. claims and affirm. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the We reject both
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 Glasser v.
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Stewart, 256 F.3d 231, 250 (4th Cir. 2001). If substantial evidence Glasser, 315
exists to support a verdict, it must be sustained. 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. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). United States v.
"[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. the statute criminalizes with . . knowingly to With respect to Count Two, subscribing a material as true in "any 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). clear error. We review a finding of materiality for
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 seeking. and bringing Hrcka closer to the relief he was
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
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." States v. Sarihifard, 155 F.3d 301, 307 (4th Cir. United 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?