10-1855-cr

United States v. Takacs

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL

APPENDIX 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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 17th 4 day of June, two thousand eleven.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 Chief Judge,

8 RALPH K. WINTER,

9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

10 Circuit Judges.

11

12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

14 Appellee,

15

16 -v.- 10-1855-cr

17

18 KRISZTIAN TAKACS,

19 Defendant-Appellant.

20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

21

22 FOR APPELLANT: Gail Jacobs, Great Neck, New York.

23

24 FOR APPELLEE: Julie S. Pfluger, Assistant United States

25 Attorney (Elizabeth A. Horsman, Assistant

26 United States Attorney, on the brief),

27 for Richard S. Hartunian, United States

28 Attorney for the Northern District of New

29 York.
2

1 Appeal from a judgment of conviction in the United

2 States District Court for the Northern District of New York

3 (Sharpe, J.).

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

6 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

7 AFFIRMED. 

8

9 Defendant-Appellant Krisztian Takacs (“Takacs”) appeals

10 from a judgment of conviction entered on May 11, 2010 in the

11 United States District Court for the Northern District of

12 New York (Sharpe, J.). After a jury trial, Takacs was

13 convicted of a single count of making false statements to a

14 federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). We

15 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,

16 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

17

18 We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the

19 evidence de novo. United States v. Leslie, 103 F.3d 1093,

20 1100 (2d Cir. 1997). “In challenging the sufficiency of the

21 evidence to support his conviction, a defendant bears a

22 heavy burden.” United States v. Hamilton, 334 F.3d 170, 179

23 (2d Cir. 2003). We “credit every [available] inference . .

24 . in the government’s favor, and affirm . . . . if ‘any

25 rational trier of fact could have found the essential

26 elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United

27 States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 94-95 (2d Cir. 2006)

28 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). 

29 Although Takacs moved for a judgment of acquittal at the

30 close of the Government’s case, he did not renew his motion

31 after the close of his defense. Accordingly, our review of

32 his sufficiency challenge is limited to that of plain error

33 or manifest injustice. See United States v. Finley, 245

34 F.3d 199, 202 (2d Cir. 2001).

35

36 “To convict a defendant of violating Section 1001, the

37 government must prove that the defendant: (i) knowingly and

38 willfully, (ii) made a statement, (iii) in relation to a

39 matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of

40 the United States, (iv) with knowledge that it was false or

41 fictitious and fraudulent.” United States v. Wiener, 96

42 F.3d 35, 37 (2d Cir. 1996). “[A] defendant may be convicted

43 of making a false statement only if the government proves

44 beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant either knew the

45 statement was false or acted with a conscious purpose to
3

1 avoid learning the truth.” United States v. West, 666 F.2d

2 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1981) (internal citations omitted). An act

3 is willful if it is done intentionally; the Government need

4 not prove that the defendant knew that making a false

5 statement was illegal. See United States v. George, 386

6 F.3d 383, 394 (2d Cir. 2004).

7

8 Takacs falsely claimed to a Customs and Border Patrol

9 (“CBP”) agent that he had never been denied entry into the

10 United States and that he had never been denied a visa. 

11 Takacs later admitted to another CBP agent (and corroborated

12 this admission at trial) that he was not truthful in his

13 responses “[b]ecause [he] would have [been] immediately

14 kicked off the train . . . .” This admission alone

15 sufficiently supported the conviction that Takacs knowingly

16 and willfully made a false statement to a federal officer. 

17 See Reifler, 446 F.3d at 94.

18

19 We have considered Takacs’ remaining arguments and find

20 them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the

21 judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.

22

23

24

25 FOR THE COURT:

26 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

27