SUMMARY ORDER

Katherine Chan Lo appeals from her conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of perjury and one count Of conspiracy to commit perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1623(a). She argues that the evidence presented at her trial was insufficient to support her • conviction. We affirm. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We “review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence” in a criminal case. United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215, 241 (2d Cir. 2010). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a guilty verdict, we “view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the government, and ... draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.” United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir. 2000). We uphold a jury’s guilty verdict if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).

Chan Lo’s primary argument is that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence that Chan Lo’s statements to Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were material to the inquiry before Judge Forrest at the time. “[A] concealment or misrepresentation is material if it ‘has a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.” Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988) (quoting Weinstock v. United States, 231 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1956)). Chan Lo’s materiality argument fails because she misidentifies the relevant inquiry before Judge Forrest. Chan Lo claims that Judge Forrest was tasked with determining whether Chan Lo had participated in making counterfeit watches. However, Judge Forrest’s task was to determine whether Chan Lo was the same Katherine Chan Lo who had been named as a defendant in a civil counterfeiting lawsuit. In the present case, the jury received sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Chan Lo’s statements regarding her connections with a company called “Golden Development,” her employment history, and her whereabouts on March 19, 2012 were capable of influencing Judge Forrest as she deter *81 mined whether Chan Lo was the defendant in the civil counterfeiting case. Accordingly, Chan Lo’s materiality argument fails.

Chan Lo also raises several arguments that the government produced insufficient evidence showing that her statements at issue were false or that she conspired with co-defendant Yoorok Jung. Each of Chan Lo’s arguments are defeated by evidence admitted at trial supporting a reasonable factfinder’s conclusion that Chan Lo’s statements were false and that she conspired with Jung.

We have considered all of defendant-appellant’s contentions on appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.