UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
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
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
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