UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4087
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATSY PARTIN SALMON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-99-160-BO)
Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: October 15, 2001
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert H. Hale, Jr., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John
Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Scott L. Wilkinson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patsy Partin Salmon appeals her conviction for bankruptcy
fraud and the aiding and abetting of bankruptcy fraud in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 152(7) (West 2000). Salmon contends that the
district court erred in denying her motion under Fed. R. Crim. P.
29, to set aside the verdict and for judgment of acquittal, in
which she argued that there was insufficient evidence to support
the verdict. We affirm.
To determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support
a conviction, this court considers whether, taking the evidence in
the light most favorable to the government, any reasonable trier of
fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United
States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996). We grant
Salmon’s motion to file a supplemental joint appendix. We have re-
viewed the record and the briefs and find that there was sufficient
evidence to support Salmon’s conviction for bankruptcy fraud and
the aiding and abetting of bankruptcy fraud. Accordingly, we affirm
Salmon’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2