UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4463
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TAWYNE DYONNE AUSTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-02-885)
Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tawyne Dyonne Austin was convicted after a jury trial of
marriage fraud. The district court sentenced her to twenty-one
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Austin’s counsel has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, but stating that, in
his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Austin has
filed a pro se supplemental brief, also contending that there was
insufficient evidence to support her conviction.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
evidence was sufficient. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,
80 (1942) (standard of review). To the extent Austin challenges
the credibility of the Government’s witnesses, “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.”
United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and
find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Austin’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of 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
2
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 the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3