UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)(s)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT,

Defendant. 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR NEW TRIAL

The United States respectfully opposes defendant Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint’s Motion for 

Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial (D.E. 202). 

In assessing a motion for judgment of acquittal, the Court

view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and draw[s] all 

reasonable inferences and credibility choices in the verdict’s favor. A guilty verdict 

cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have 

allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Because a 

jury is free to choose among the reasonable constructions of the evidence, it is not 

necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be 

wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt.

United States v. Godwin, 765 F.3d 1306, 1319–20 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Philossaint argues that his statements at his naturalization interview “were 

truthful based upon his understanding of the law at the time. Mr. Philossaint, once arrested and 

represented by counsel, came to realize that his underlying conduct was, in fact, criminal.” D.E. 202 

at 1–2. He also argues that the government presented “no direct proof” of his guilt. D.E. 202 at 3.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 1 of 5
2

At trial, the government admitted three applications submitted on behalf of Royal Elite 

Trans, LLC, One Solution Group LLC, and Dad Money Investment Group LLC, all of which were 

100% owned by Philossaint. GX 14–16. We also admitted analyses of Royal Elite Trans’s and One 

Solution Group’s bank records, which established that Royal Elite Trans’s application significantly 

overstated its revenues and One Solution Group’s application very significantly overstated its 

monthly payroll. GX 35r, 36p. Dad Money’s application, submitted on August 7, 2020, represented 

that the company had $398,774 in gross revenues during the 12 months prior to January 31, 2020. 

In reality, the company was organized and opened its bank account only in July 2020. GX 10, 16, 

26.

At Philossaint’s naturalization interview on December 15, 2020, a U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) officer asked Philossaint whether he had ever made any 

misrepresentation to obtain any public benefit in the United States. He responded that he had not.

GX 46 at 35. Regardless of whether Philossaint understood in December 2020 that it was a crime 

to make misrepresentations to obtain a public benefit, the jury was still entitled to conclude that 

Philossaint knew in December 2020 that he had made such misrepresentations, and therefore that 

he knowingly made a false statement at his naturalization interview. On that basis, the jury could 

find that he had knowingly made false statements under oath at his naturalization interview.

In his naturalization interview, the USCIS officer also asked Philossaint whether he had ever 

committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit, a crime or offense for which he was 

not arrested. GX 46 at 30. Philossaint also answered no. Although the jury was entitled to find 

Philossaint guilty without consideration of this question, it was also entitled to find that Philossaint 

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 2 of 5
3

knowingly answered this question falsely. The Royal Elite and Dad Money applications warned 

Philossaint that “any false statement or misrepresentation to the Small Business Administration may 

result in criminal, civil or administrative sanctions including, but not limited to fines and 

imprisonment . . . .” GX 14 at 3; GX 16 at 3. The One Solution Group application warned 

Philossaint that “knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is 

punishable under the law, including . . . by imprisonment . . . .” GX 15 at 2. On the One Solution 

Group application, Philossaint initialed next of this warning. GX 15 at 2. Therefore, the jury was

entitled to conclude that Philossaint knew that he was committing a crime when he submitted his 

fraudulent loan applications.

Because the jury was entitled to conclude that Philossaint knowingly made false statements 

in his naturalization interview, Philossaint’s motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied. In 

the alternative, Philossaint moves for a new trial. When considering a motion for new trial, the 

Court “need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. It may weigh the 

evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312 

(11th Cir. 1985). Nevertheless, “[t]he court may not reweigh the evidence and set aside the verdict 

simply because it feels some other result would be more reasonable. The evidence must preponderate 

heavily against the verdict, such that it would be a miscarriage of justice to let the verdict stand.” Id. 

at 1312–13. Therefore, “courts have granted new trial motions based on weight of the evidence only 

where the credibility of the government’s witnesses had been impeached and the government’s case 

had been marked by uncertainties and discrepancies.” Id. at 1313 (11th Cir. 1985). Nothing of the 

sort is true here.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 3 of 5
4

Philossaint argues that, at the time of his naturalization interview, he was “new to this 

country, had limited knowledge of the laws of the United States, and was influenced by a yet to be 

indicted co-conspirator who convinced him that what they were doing was lawful.” D.E. 202 at 2. 

But Philossaint did not introduce any evidence that he had limited knowledge of the laws of United 

States, that he was influenced by his conspirator, or that his conspirator convinced him that his 

actions were legal. These are unsupported allegations. Even Philossaint’s assertion that he was “new 

to this country” is questionable. Philossaint entered the United States in 2016; by the time of his 

naturalization interview, he had been in this country for four years. In short, none of Philossaint’s 

factual assertions undermine the jury’s verdict.

Philossaint does not call the Court’s attention to any significant impeachment of the 

government’s witnesses nor to any uncertainties or discrepancies in our evidence. He argues that 

Special Agent Michelle McDaniel did not know whether Philossaint knew that his actions were 

criminal. D.E. 202 at 3. On cross-examination, Special Agent McDaniel agreed that she did not have 

personal knowledge of Philossaint’s subjective state of mind; she was not asked whether she believed 

that the evidence established Philossaint’s guilt. If Philossaint disagrees with the government’s 

recollection of Special Agent McDaniel’s testimony, he should order the transcript in support of his 

motion. However, regardless of Special Agent McDaniel’s testimony, the determination of 

Philossaint’s knowledge was for the jury. The evidence does not strongly preponderate against the 

jury’s verdict; therefore, Philossaint’s motion should be denied.

Furthermore, Philossaint’s arguments for a new trial deal concern only his statement that he 

had never committed a crime for which he had not been arrested. He does not address his other 

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 4 of 5
5 

false statement during his naturalization interview, namely, that he had never made 

misrepresentations to obtain a public benefit in the United States. Even assuming for purposes of 

argument that Philossaint did not understand the American legal system, that a conspirator 

convinced him that his actions were legal, and that Special Agent McDaniel did not know whether

he knew that his actions were criminal, the fact remains that he made misrepresentations to obtain 

government loans and then denied those misrepresentations when interviewed by USCIS. Based on 

this separate statement, the evidence does not preponderate heavily against the verdict and 

Philossaint is not entitled to a new trial.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial

should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: s/ Marc Osborne

Assistant United States Attorney

Court ID# A5500796 

500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Tel: (561) 209-1014 

marc.osborne@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 5 of 5