Case ID: f-appx_81/html/0766-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tawyne Dyonne AUSTIN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4463.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2003.
    Decided Nov. 20, 2003.
    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.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (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 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