Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

rw .
· ` ¤ _, Case 3:03-cr-00146-RNC Document 89 Filed 05/18/2005 _ 1
. · V Q; ` I . I Ei. ``1`’, @41 Cjw w
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS C \'[
2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
3 •
4 SUMMARY ORDER
.5
6 THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
7 REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS
A 8 OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY B‘E CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS
9 OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A
10 RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
11 OR RES JUDICATA. i
12
13 At a stated term ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
14 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
15 19th day of April, `two thousand and tive.
16 ‘ -
17 PRESENT: s $@1*8 We
18 ?VE`¢i`:?""»*,
19 HON. GUIDO CALABRESI, Shi _
20 HON. JOSE A. CABRANES, MER 1.9 @5 E-
21 yifp ·
gg ,_ Circuit Judges,
24 HON. JANET C. HALL,
25
26 District Juclge.° (_ __
Qi E 5 6*2
29 · . fe `f ..
30 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ' 1 _ "
31 I iii: T
32 Appellee, I , . .
33 . _ tl · 1 ·i
34 V. NOgQ4'4392I9 l "
35 `$;·}&
36 AARON J. CELIS, l l`
37
38 Defendant-Appellant,
QB ..;_..._._._;.........._
41
1 ` The Honorable Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge for the District of
2 Comiecticut, sitting by designation.
_ 1
_
I / I—I
T- ’ ,
-155 Y"\·P~»~*lJt-UE. Q )©,D{_-
7 V ries ·*· -··*-·==¤=·=:<4-V-¤ac»¤—1¥-we-#¢>#¢—-¥·"·#‘¢*’=*‘*'*+‘*‘*‘L€g*i*'%*?&*¥’%?°i"§*‘j*"‘ ‘u 7- ·
_ , - ——- . --. E- A . —.e. — -;;-—-- —;;
5 T ‘ "` · We
·_ I _l-· ·· · —· ·‘-*-==·==¤<·L-v&»z¢¤·2·¤~?-slr:-¢—=-:=‘=·==-%=‘=Ef·¥—*—“¥¢—F-$#-1+*“¢`*?*?-‘“—"”¤¤“¤-"*‘—"*‘**“‘*‘**“*L°*%**?*¥‘¥?“l°`E*‘§* "‘ ’· · E
, _ A —— . ee . --. --. E;. A -;.;:1; --;;;
· - —— EE . sa. ..E.._

J I Case 3:03-cr-00146-RNC Document 89 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 2 of 3
1 For Appellee: JAMES K.`FII;,AN, JR., for Kevin J. O’Connor, United States
2 Attomey for the District of Connecticut (William J. Nardini, on the
3 brief)
4
_5 For Defendant-Appellant: AUDREY A. FEZLSEN, Law Offices of Bruce D. Koffsky,
6 Stamford, CT .
7
8 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Chatigny,
9 J). g
19 l
12
13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
14 DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
lé l
17
18 Defendant-Appellant Aaron J. Celis, III ("Celis") appeals from a judgment of conviction -
19 for making a false statement in violation of l!8 U.S.C. § 100l(a)(2). On appeal, Celis contends
20 that there was insufficient evidence to prove etwo ofthe elements of § 100l.(a)(2): 1) that Celis’s
21 statement was false; and 2) that Celis’s statement was material. We assume that the parties are
22 familiar with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.
23 A defendant challenging a conviction on sufficiency grounds "bears a heavy burden."
24 United States v. Masatto, 73 F.3d 1233, 1241 (2d Cir. 1996). The court must consider the `
25 evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the government, crediting every l
26 inference that the jury might have drawn in favor of the government. United States v. Jackson,
27 335 F.3d 170, 180 (2d Cir, 2003). Only where no rational trier of fact could have found that the
28 defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt will a defendant be able to prevail
29 on a sufficiency challenge. See, e.g., United States v. Payton, 159 F.3d 49, 55-56 (2d Cir. 1998).
30 Celis cannot meet this standard. Viewed favorably to the government, the evidence
31 introduced at trial proved: 1) that Celis has two felony convictions; 2) that Celis wrote *‘N/A" in
2

= i
u - I kr Case 3:03-cr-00146-RNC Document 89 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 3 of 3 I
1 response to a criminal history question on a security clearance form; 3) that Celis certified that i
2 his responses on the security clearance form were “COITCCt [and] without consequential i
3 omissions"; and 4) that Celis would not have been granted security clearance, had he reported his {
4 convictions. This evidence was adequate to prove both the falsity of Ce1is’s statement, see, e. g.,
5 United States v. Mattox, 689 F.2d 531, 532-33 (5th Cir. 1982), and the materiality of that
6 statement. See United States v. W/tab, 355 [email protected] 155, 163 (2d Cir. 2004) (a false statement is E

7 material within the meaning of § 1001 if "it has a ‘natural tendency to influence, or is capable of I l
8 influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.’”) (quoting L
9 Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16 (1999)). ` I
10 We have considered all of Ce1is’s arguments and find them to be without merit. We 1
11 therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. I
12 -
13 For the Court,
14 ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE,
( 15 I ` Clerk of the Court
16 -
17 `
18 i p
(i.r(iiiir ` t i
éosaan e ·.‘ . ·.1s tiki
_ bY __ PUT! ` I