10-1855-cr United States v. Takacs



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER**
**FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W**  **HEN CITING A SUMMARY**
**ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT**  **, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE**  **F EDERAL**  **A PPENDIX OR AN**  **ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY**
**CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY**
**COUNSEL .** 
**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 17 th** **day of June, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 8 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,** 13 **Appellee ,**  14 15 **-v.- 10-1855-cr** 16 17 **KRISZTIAN TAKACS,** 18 **Defendant-Appellant**

**.** 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 20 21 **FOR APPELLANT:** Gail Jacobs, Great Neck, New York. 22 23 **FOR APPELLEE:** Julie S. Pfluger, Assistant United States 24 Attorney (Elizabeth A. Horsman, Assistant 25 United States Attorney, on the brief ), 26 forRichard S. Hartunian, United States 27 Attorney for the Northern District of New 28 York. 292 Appeal from a judgment of conviction in the United 1 States District Court for the Northern District of New York 2 (Sharpe, J. ). 3 4 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 5 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 6
**AFFIRMED**

. 7 8 Defendant-Appellant Krisztian Takacs (“Takacs”) appeals 9 from a judgment of conviction entered on May 11, 2010 in the 10 United States District Court for the Northern District of 11 New York (Sharpe, J. ). After a jury trial, Takacs was 12 convicted of a single count of making false statements to a 13 federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). We 14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, 15 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 16 17 We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the 18 evidence denovo . United States v. Leslie , 103 F.3d 1093, 19 1100 (2d Cir. 1997). “In challenging the sufficiency of the 20 evidence to support his conviction, a defendant bears a 21 heavy burden.” United States v. Hamilton , 334 F.3d 170, 179 22 (2d Cir. 2003). We “credit every [available] inference . . 23 . in the government’s favor, and affirm . . . . if ‘any 24 rational trier of fact could have found the essential 25 elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United 26 States v. Reifler , 446 F.3d 65, 94-95 (2d Cir. 2006) 27 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). 28 Although Takacs moved for a judgment of acquittal at the 29 close of the Government’s case, he did not renew his motion 30 after the close of his defense. Accordingly, our review of 31 his sufficiency challenge is limited to that of plain error 32 or manifest injustice. See United States v. Finley , 245 33 F.3d 199, 202 (2d Cir. 2001). 34 35 “To convict a defendant of violating Section 1001, the 36 government must prove that the defendant: (i) knowingly and 37 willfully, (ii) made a statement, (iii) in relation to a 38 matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of 39 the United States, (iv) with knowledge that it was false or 40 fictitious and fraudulent.” United States v. Wiener , 96 41 F.3d 35, 37 (2d Cir. 1996). “[A] defendant may be convicted 42 of making a false statement only if the government proves 43 beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant either knew the 44 statement was false or acted with a conscious purpose to 453 avoid learning the truth.” United States v. West , 666 F.2d 1 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1981) (internal citations omitted). An act 2 is willful if it is done intentionally; the Government need 3 not prove that the defendant knew that making a false 4 statement was illegal. See United States v. George , 386 5 F.3d 383, 394 (2d Cir. 2004). 6 7 Takacs falsely claimed to a Customs and Border Patrol 8 (“CBP”) agent that he had never been denied entry into the 9 United States and that he had never been denied a visa. 10 Takacs later admitted to another CBP agent (and corroborated 11 this admission at trial) that he was not truthful in his 12 responses “[b]ecause [he] would have [been] immediately 13 kicked off the train . . . .” This admission alone 14 sufficiently supported the conviction that Takacs knowingly 15 and willfully made a false statement to a federal officer. 16 SeeReifler , 446 F.3d at 94. 17 18 We have considered Takacs’ remaining arguments and find 19 them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the 20 judgment of conviction is **AFFIRMED**

. 21 22 23 24 FOR THE COURT: 25 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 26 27