United States v. Tischler, 071714 FED2, 13-2479 (L)
|Docket Nº:||13-2479 (L), 13-2480 (Con), 13-2505 (Con), 13-2622 (Con)|
|Party Name:||United States of America, Appellee, v. Harold Tischler, AKA Hershy, Refael Brodjik, AKA Rafi, Nathan Schwartz, Gulay Cibik, AKA Sealed Defendant 2, Defendants-Appellants, Ali Gomaa, et al., Defendants.|
|Attorney:||FOR HAROLD TISCHLER: Jeffrey A Rabin (Edward M. Rappaport, on the brief), Brooklyn, NY. FOR REFAEL BRODJIK: Jeremy Gutman, New York, NY. FOR NATHAN SCHWARTZ: Peter E. Brill, Brill Legal Group, P.C., New York, NY. FOR GULAY CIBIK: Xavier R. Donaldson, Donaldson, Chilliest LLP, New York, NY. FOR UN...|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT Guido Calabresi, Jos|
|Case Date:||July 17, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17thday of July, two thousand fourteen.
Appeal from judgments of conviction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Naomi Reice Buchwald, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court's judgments are AFFIRMED.
Defendants Harold Tischler, Refael Brodjik, Nathan Schwartz, and Gulay Cibik (jointly, "defendants") appeal from judgments of conviction entered on June 21, 2013, following a 13-day jury trial, for conspiracy to commit visa fraud and to make false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and making false statements to immigration authorities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546(a) and 2.1 We consider on appeal various constitutional and statutory challenges raised by each defendant to his conviction and sentence. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
The eight-count superseding indictment in this case arises out of a massive immigration-fraud scheme that operated out of the law office of Earl David (the "David Firm"). The indictment alleged that, over more than a decade, the David Firm submitted fraudulent immigration applications to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") and the United States Department of Labor ("DOL"). The scheme allegedly exploited rules that permitted an alien to seek lawful immigration status in the United States based on a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP