1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2944

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Anne Eley, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 3, 2009

Filed: June 9, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anne Eley, a dual citizen of Switzerland and England, appeals the district

court’s1

 judgment entered after a bench trial finding her guilty of marriage fraud, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c). The district court sentenced Eley to 6 months in

prison and 2 years of supervised release. In a brief filed under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm. 
-2-

We review the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the

government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, accepting all

reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and neither weighing the evidence nor

assessing credibility of witnesses. See United States v. White, 506 F.3d 635, 641 (8th

Cir. 2007) (standard of review for sufficiency-of-evidence challenge after bench trial

is same as standard applied when reviewing jury verdict; if district court’s account of

evidence is plausible in light of record in its entirety, court of appeals may not reverse

even if convinced it would have weighed evidence differently had it been sitting as

trier of fact ). We find no basis upon which to disturb the district court’s decision to

credit the testimony of Billy Joe Middleton, who testified that he and Eley entered into

a sham marriage with the understanding that she would help him financially and he

would help her establish legal residency in the United States. See United States v.

Boyd, 180 F.3d 967, 979 (8th Cir. 1999) (court of appeals will not disturb district

court’s finding on credibility of witness). This testimony, along with evidence that

Eley understood her immigration status had changed after she and her first husband

divorced, was sufficient to support the verdict. See 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c); United States

v. Anwar, 428 F.3d 1102, 1108-09 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Vickerage, 921

F.2d 143, 144 (8th Cir. 1990) (marriage fraud involves entering into sham marriage

to circumvent and evade immigration laws). We do not consider Eley’s pro se

arguments challenging her counsel’s performance. See United States v. McAdory,

501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate court ordinarily defers ineffectiveassistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

Following our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on

condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for

rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________