UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4550

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BEVERLY J. BEARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:08-cr-00141-CCB-1)

Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: December 8, 2010

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven G. Berry, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Kathleen 

O’Connell Gavin, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Beverly J. Beard on three counts of 

False Statement to a Federal Agency, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) 

(2006), and one count of False Statement to the Social Security 

Administration (“SSA”), 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(3) (2006). She 

received a thirty-month sentence. Beard’s appellate counsel has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), stating in his opinion there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal but raising the issues of whether sufficient evidence 

supports the jury’s verdict and whether trial counsel was 

ineffective. The Government has declined to file a responsive 

brief. Beard has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support his conviction bears a heavy burden.” 

United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). A jury’s verdict “must be 

sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most 

favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United 

States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see United States v. Perkins, 

470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006). 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.” United States v. Alerre, 430 

F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks 
3

omitted). We consider both circumstantial and direct evidence, 

drawing all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the 

Government’s favor. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 

(4th Cir. 2008). In resolving issues of substantial evidence, 

we do not reassess the factfinder’s determination of witness 

credibility, see United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th 

Cir. 2008), and “can reverse a conviction on insufficiency 

grounds only when the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United 

States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the 

transcript of the jury trial and the evidence introduced at that 

trial, and conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support 

the jury’s convictions. 

Beard also maintains counsel below was ineffective. 

Specifically, she claims that trial counsel erred in withdrawing 

the motion to suppress; not asking for a breakdown of the 

restitution; not challenging the jurors that were affiliated 

with government officials and police officers; not objecting to 

the several day break in trial; and presenting only a short 

closing argument that addressed none of the issues at hand. 

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable 

on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes that 

counsel provided ineffective assistance. United States v. 
4

Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We find that 

Beard’s claims are not ripe for review at this time.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and Beard’s pro se supplemental brief and supplement, and 

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that 

counsel inform Beard, in writing, of her right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Beard 

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in 

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Beard. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED