Opinion ID: 1383063
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: First, Hasan argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts. Specifically, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to conclude, as the jury apparently did, that Dr. Taqueer did not give her permission for Hasan's parents to take Muzammil to India. He further contends that misstating a mailing address on a passport application is not sufficiently material to establish guilt of the offense of making a false statement on a passport application. Because the task of choosing among competing, permissible inferences is for the [jury and] not for the reviewing court, United States v. McDermott, 245 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir.2001), we are required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 459 (2d Cir.2004), and resolve all issues of credibility in favor of the jury's verdict, United States v. Desena, 287 F.3d 170, 177 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). See generally Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781. At trial, the government introduced much evidence that Dr. Taqueer had not given permission to Hasan's parents to take Muzammil to India. First, Dr. Taqueer testified that she did not give her consent to Hasan's parents. Furthermore, several emails were admitted into evidence that were written by Hasan and demonstrated that Hasan knew that Dr. Taqueer had filed a petition in Family Court, knew that Dr. Taqueer desired the return of Muzammil, and had control over Muzammil's whereabouts. Hasan did testify that he had Dr. Taqueer's consent to allow his parents to take Muzammil to India, but we resolve all is issues of credibility in favor of the jury's verdict, Desena, 287 F.3d at 177, and thus we conclude that the jury found Dr. Taqueer's testimony, and not Hasan's testimony, credible. The government also presented other evidence at trial that supports Hasan's conviction. The evidence, for example, that Hasan signed the first two pages of Muzammil's passport application  the pages that contained the false address  several days after Dr. Taqueer signed the third page of the application undermines Hasan's claim that they filled out the pages together. Similarly, evidence presented at trial that Hasan purchased a one-way ticket to India undermines Hasan's claim that he had only planned a brief trip to India in July 2006 to retrieve Muzammil. Perhaps most importantly, the recorded telephone conversations between Hasan and Dr. Taqueer contradict Hasan's statement that he continually made valiant efforts to return Muzammil to Dr. Taqueer. Taken together, along with other evidence presented at trial, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence at trial to establish that Hasan intended to, and did, commit the kidnapping crimes and thus to support the jury's guilty verdicts. For this reason, we affirm the judgment of the District Court with respect to the convictions for international parental kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. Next, Hasan argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict on the charge of making false statements on a passport application. Specifically, Hasan argues that his use of the incorrect address on Muzammil's passport application cannot support his conviction of this charge because it was not a material misstatement. Whether the statute prohibiting making false statements on a passport application, 18 U.S.C. § 1542, contains a materiality requirement is a question of first impression in this Circuit. When construing a federal statute, we begin with the text of that statute. See, e.g., United States v. Kozeny, 541 F.3d 166, 171 (2d Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 680, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985)). Where the statute's language is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989)). Beginning with the text of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, we conclude that the statute plainly does not require that the false statement be material. See note 1 ante (text of statute). Unlike other statutes involving false statements, § 1542 does not contain a materiality requirement. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 prohibits the making of any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (emphasis added). The fact that a defendant knowingly and willfully made a false statement on the passport application is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Although we have not directly addressed this question before, each of our sister Circuits that has considered this question has agreed with our conclusion that § 1542 does not require that the alleged false statement be materially false. See United States v. Ramos, 725 F.2d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding that, unlike § 1001, § 1542 does not have a materiality requirement); see also United States v. Salinas, 373 F.3d 161, 167 (1 st Cir.2004) (same); United States v. Hart, 291 F.3d 1084, 1085 (9th Cir.2002) (adopting the holding in Ramos, 725 F.2d at 1323). Here, Hasan listed his brother's South Carolina address as Muzammil's residence, even though Muzammil's actual residence at the time was in Brooklyn. On appeal, Hasan only challenges that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish materiality and does not dispute that the evidence was otherwise sufficient to establish that he knowingly made a false statement with the intent to obtain a passport. Because we conclude that § 1542 does not require proof of materiality, we affirm the judgment of the District Court on this count.