UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 97-4275
CORNELIUS EMANUEL YANCEY, a/k/a
Lee J. Morgan,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-96-155)
Submitted: September 3, 1998
Decided: September 16, 1998
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
William P. Robinson, Jr., ROBINSON, SHELTON & ANDERSON,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles Philip Rosenberg, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Cornelius Yancey appeals from his conviction by a jury of credit
card fraud (two counts), for which he was sentenced to eighteen
months imprisonment. Yancey's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether the
evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. Although informed
of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Yancey has not done
so. Because our review of the entire record reveals no reversible error,
we affirm.
Yancey was named in a three-count indictment in July 1996 charg-
ing him with two counts of credit card fraud, 15 U.S.C. § 1644(a)
(1994), from April 2, 1996, through June 1, 1996, and use of a false
social security number, 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (1994), in March
1996. His first trial in October 1996 ended in a mistrial. At the con-
clusion of his second jury trial in December 1996, Yancey was found
guilty of the two counts of credit card fraud and not guilty of using
a false social security number.
Several witnesses who testified for the government identified
Yancey as the person who had purchased items with a credit card
issued in the name of Lee J. Morgan. The government also presented
Lee J. Morgan, who testified that he did not authorize the use of his
name, nor did he apply for a credit card with either Central Fidelity
Bank or First Union Bank. Representatives of both banks testified that
the applications were submitted in the name of Lee J. Morgan and
listed Yancey's address. Yancey charged a total of $10,522.27 on the
card issued by Central Fidelity and $5883.82 on the First Union Bank
credit card.
A conviction must be affirmed if there is substantial evidence,
viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support a
2
finding of guilt. See Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
Circumstantial and direct evidence are both considered, and the gov-
ernment is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See United
States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). Credit card
fraud, as defined in § 1644(a), includes the knowing use of a fraudu-
lently obtained credit card to obtain money, goods, services, or any-
thing else of value which within any one-year period has a value
aggregating $1000 or more.
We find that the evidence was sufficient to support Yancey's con-
victions. We have examined the entire record in this case in accor-
dance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues
for appeal. The court requires that counsel inform his client, in writ-
ing, 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 coun-
sel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3