United States v. Marcel Kiza, 855 F.3d 596

Marcel Kiza (aka Amuri Ntambwe Kiza) obtained multiple identities and social security numbers, naturalized as Marcel Joshua Kiza, and obtained a new SSN in 2007.
Using the Marcel identity, he applied for and was appointed representative payee for alleged minor children G.K. and N.K., claiming the death of Amuri Kiza; SSA paid $51,860 in survivors’ benefits (2011–2013).
Government investigation showed Marcel and Amuri were the same person (fingerprint matches, immigration records, DMV photos, witness testimony); Defendant had prior denied benefits applications.
Defendant was indicted and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 641 for theft of government property; he did not testify and presented no defense evidence at trial.
On appeal, Defendant chiefly argued (1) survivors’ benefits are not property of the United States within § 641 because they derive from a trust funded by payroll taxes, and (2) the district court improperly limited cross-examination of a government witness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Social Security survivors’ benefits are a “thing of value of the United States” under 18 U.S.C. § 641	Benefits originate from SSA/U.S. Treasury and are administered and controlled by the federal government, so they are government property	Benefits come from a trust funded by individual payroll taxes and are earmarked for contributors, not the U.S. government, so not "government property"	Benefits are a thing of value of the United States; § 641 applies (conviction affirmed)
Sufficiency of evidence that Defendant stole/converted funds and acted with intent to deprive the government	Government showed origin and control of funds and presented identity, motive, and conduct evidence supporting theft and intent	Argued government failed to prove conversion/intent beyond a reasonable doubt	Viewing evidence in light most favorable to the government, substantial evidence supported conviction (denial of Rule 29 affirmed)
Whether the district court abused discretion by limiting cross-examination about alleged deportation proceedings involving third party Afia Kiza	Cross-examination on potential bias was proper	Limitation prevented probing witness bias and enhanced credibility	Limitation was within trial management discretion; the proffered line was speculative, of limited relevance, and risked confusion; no abuse of discretion

United States v. Gill, 193 F.3d 802 (4th Cir. 1999) (held social security disability checks originated from government and were U.S. property)
United States v. Shirley, 720 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2013) (rejected trust-fund argument; social security trust funds are federal in character and payments qualify as U.S. property)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review: any rational trier of fact standard)
Overton v. United States, 619 F.2d 1299 (8th Cir. 1980) (discussed trust funds as governmental bookkeeping rather than segregated private property)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (trial court has wide latitude to limit cross-examination to prevent prejudice or confusion)