UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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 
4

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