UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5053
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GABRIEL ADEKUNLE AGEH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(8:05-cr-00217-AW)
Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Staff
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Gina L. Simms, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gabriel Adekunle Ageh was convicted by a jury of eight
counts: forgery, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1546(a) (West Supp. 2008) (Counts 1
and 3); fraud in connection with identification documents, 18
U.S.C.A. § 1028(a)(1), (c)(1) (West Supp. 2008) (Count 2);
possession of a false document-making implement, 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1028(a)(5) (West Supp. 2008) (Count 4); possession of false
identification documents, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1028(a)(3), (c)(1), (c)(3)
(West Supp. 2008) (Count 5); Social Security fraud, 42 U.S.C.
§ 408(a)(7)(c) (West Supp. 2008) (Counts 6 and 7); and aggravated
identity theft, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1028A(a), (c)(11) (West Supp. 2008)
(Count 8). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no
meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issues:
(1) whether Ageh’s convictions are supported by sufficient
evidence, and (2) whether the district court committed reversible
error by denying Ageh’s request for an alternative jury
instruction. Ageh was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has failed to do so. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
First, viewing the evidence as required, we find that any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,
- 2 -
862-63 (4th Cir. 1996). Second, we find no abuse of discretion in
the district court’s refusal to give Ageh’s proffered jury
instruction. United States v. Abbas, 74 F.3d 506, 513 (4th Cir.
1996).
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -