UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,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_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 pr ecedent 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 charging 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 March1996. His first trial in October 1996 ended in a mistrial. At the conclusion of his second jury trial in D ecember 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
2finding of guilt. See Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).Circumstantial and direct evidence are both considered, and the government is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See United States v. Tresvant , 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). Credit cardfraud, as defined in § 1644(a), includes the knowing use of a fraudulently obtained credit card to obtain money, goods, services, or anything 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 convictions. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders , and find no meritorious issuesfor appeal. The court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States forfurther review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel maymove 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