UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4544

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HUA FANG, a/k/a Hana Fang Tjossem, a/k/a Hwa Bang Fang, 

a/k/a Bang Hwa Fang,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:12-cr-00529-GBL-1)

Submitted: May 19, 2014 Decided: May 23, 2014

Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John C. Gardner, GARDNER & MENDOZA, P.C., Virginia Beach, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Ryan K. Dickey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hua Fang appeals the district court’s judgment after 

the jury convicted her of attempted unlawful naturalization in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) (2012) and false statement in a 

naturalization matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a) 

(2012). Fang’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, 

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the 

issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Fang 

of the indicted charges. Fang was notified of her right to file 

a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 

197, 212 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotations omitted). We 

do not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume that 

the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor 

of the Government. Id. We must uphold a jury verdict if there 

is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to 

the Government, to support it. United States v. Al Sabahi, 719 

F.3d 305, 311 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 464 (2013) 

(citation and quotations 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.” United States v. Burgos, 94 
3

F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We have reviewed the 

record and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support 

Fang’s convictions.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This 

court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in 

writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of 

the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client.

We 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