UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4504

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL MAKALOU,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00489-JCC-1)

Submitted: March 14, 2013 Decided: April 3, 2013

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Coburn, COBURN & GREENBAUM, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Rebeca H. 

Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; 

Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Chang, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Makalou appeals his conviction for assault 

with a deadly weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (2006). On 

appeal, Makalou argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

support his conviction and that the district court abused its 

discretion when it denied his motions for a new trial. We 

affirm.

This court reviews the denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 

motion de novo. United States v. Lawing, 703 F.3d 229, 239 (4th 

Cir. 2012). When a Rule 29 motion is based on a claim of 

insufficient evidence, the verdict must be sustained “if there 

is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to 

the government, to support it.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We will not weigh evidence or review witness 

credibility. United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th 

Cir. 1997). 

The government was required to prove that Makalou 

committed an assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to 

cause bodily harm. See 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3); United States v. 

Sturgis, 48 F.3d 784, 786 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court 

found credible the testimony of the victim, an examining doctor, 

a neighbor, and several federal agents. Taking the view most 

favorable to the government, the evidence established each 

element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We thus 
3

reject Makalou’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. 

See Lawing, 703 F.3d at 240.

A district court may grant a new trial on a 

defendant’s motion “if the interest of justice so requires.” 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Rule 33 motions are granted 

“sparingly[] and . . . only when the evidence weighs heavily 

against the verdict.” United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190,

203 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our 

review of the district court’s denial is for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Moore, F.3d , , 2013 WL 

765746, at *4 (4th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013). 

After a complete review of the record, we conclude 

that Makalou did not present sufficient grounds for which the 

district court could grant him a new trial. See United 

States v. Custis, 988 F.2d 1355, 1359 (4th Cir. 1993) (“This 

circuit has emphasized that new evidence going only to the 

credibility of a witness does not generally warrant the granting 

of a new trial.”); see also Moore, 2013 WL 765746, at *4

(setting forth five factors that district courts consider when 

evaluating motion for new trial based on newly discovered 

evidence). We therefore conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for a new trial.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 
4

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED