UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 March

1996. His first trial in October 1996 ended in a mistrial. At the conclusion 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 government 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 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 issues

for appeal. The 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