United States v. Wakker

── United States v. Wakker ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General 24-3213-cr United States v. Wakker 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 TO 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 29th day of May, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges, ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, ∗ District Judge. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 24-3213-cr BRUCE WAKKER, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________________ ∗ Judge Arun Subramanian of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. FOR APPELLEE: Thomas R. Sutcliffe, Assistant United States Attorney of Counsel (Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General; John A. Sarcone III, First Assistant U.S. Attorney; on the brief), Syracuse, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: James Branden, Law Office of James M. Branden, Staten Island, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the December 2, 2024, judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Defendant-appellant Bruce Wakker appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Wakker was convicted by a jury on all three counts of an Indictment charging him with one count of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), and two counts of attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1470. Wakker argued that he was entrapped into committing the charged offenses, and the District Court instructed the jury on that defense. On appeal, Wakker contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, because he made out an entrapment defense; specifically, he contends that the trial evidence established that “the government induced the crimes to which Mr. Wakker had no predisposition.” Wakker Br. at 2. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 2  STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court “review[s] preserved challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and unpreserved challenges for plain error.” United States v. Orelien, 119 F.4th 217, 222 (2d Cir. 2024) (citation modified). “A court reviewing a conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence must affirm the conviction if it determines that after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Smith, 896 F.3d 592, 593-94 (2d Cir. 2018) (citation modifi