United States of America v. Makushamari Gozo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MAKUSHAMARI GOZO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00393-CCB-1)
Submitted: June 9, 2015 Decided: June 17, 2015
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, David I. Sharfstein,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 5 --

PER CURIAM:
Makushamari Gozo was convicted by a jury of 18 counts of
filing false and fictitious claims in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 287 (2012), and five counts of bank fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1344 (2012). He appeals. Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking the
Court to review whether the evidence was sufficient to show the
requisite fraudulent intent to support Gozo’s convictions for
filing false claims under § 287. Counsel also questions whether
the district court erred in declining to admit Defense Exhibit
6. Gozo has filed a pro se brief, stating that he is actually
innocent and asserting that the government’s case is missing
essential elements. The government has filed a response brief.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a
motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 for judgment of
acquittal. United States v. Reed, 780 F.3d 260, 269 (4th Cir.
2015). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
faces “a heavy burden[.]” United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d
129, 137 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The jury verdict must be sustained if “there is substantial
evidence in the record, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the government, to support the conviction.” United States v.
Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
2

-- 2 of 5 --

marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is evidence that a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted). “Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for
the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United
States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 consists of two elements:
(1) making or presenting a claim to any agency of the United
States, and (2) knowing that such claim is false, fictitious, or
fraudulent. See United States v. Ewing, 957 F.2d 115, 120 (4th
Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Bolden, 325 F.3d 471, 494
(4th Cir. 2003) (stating that § 287 conviction will be upheld
where the evidence shows the submission of a false claim and if
the defendant acted with knowledge that the claim was false and
with a consciousness that he was doing something wrong or in
violation of the law).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and
find that the evidence amply supports Gozo’s convictions under
§ 287. The government presented evidence showing that Gozo
filed false personal and excise tax returns with the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). The tax returns were based on income
Gozo did not earn, on false claims for tax credits, and on the
3

-- 3 of 5 --

use of alternative fuels that were never used. The government
introduced more than two dozen tax returns showing that Gozo
requested over $22 million in tax refunds, both personal and
excise, from the IRS. Gozo received over $376,000 of the
requested refunds and almost received another $12 million. Gozo
used paper companies as part of his scheme which did not
actually conduct business and which made it seem that he was
wealthy and successful at the time he filed the tax returns. In
fact, during the time frame in question, Gozo was either
administratively detained by immigration authorities, or
unemployed and in need of assistance to secure food and housing.
In light of this evidence, counsel’s assertion that the evidence
failed to support a finding that Gozo acted with fraudulent
intent is clearly without merit.
Next, we turn to counsel’s claim that the district court
erred in declining to admit Defense Exhibit 6. We review
evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and “will only
overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and
irrational.” United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon our review, we
conclude that counsel’s suggestion that the documents contained
in Defense Exhibit 6 were self-authenticating under Fed. R.
Evid. 902 is meritless. Finally, we have reviewed the issues
4

-- 4 of 5 --

raised by Gozo in his pro se brief and find them to be lacking
in merit as well.
Our review pursuant to Anders has revealed no meritorious
issues for review. We accordingly affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Gozo in
writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Gozo requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Gozo. We deny Gozo’s pending
motion to reconsider and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5

-- 5 of 5 --