UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4037

STEVEN DENNIS JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-99-127)

Submitted: August 31, 2000

Decided: September 18, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Charles Arthur Gavin, WHITE, BLACKBURN & CONTE, P.C.,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen Fahey, United States Attorney, Sara E. Flannery, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Steven Dennis Jones appeals the jury's verdict convicting him of

ten counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 1344 (1994), one

count of credit card fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 1029(a)(5)

(1994), and twenty-five counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1343 (1994). Through his restaurant, the French Quarters in Richmond, Virginia, Jones perpetrated a scheme to defraud his customers,

several credit card companies, and the third party processors of the

credit card charges. Jones used his restaurant's contractual relationship with various credit card companies to overcharge his customers

by exorbitant amounts, obtain wire transfers from his third party processors, NOVA and First USA, and withdraw those funds from his

business account with First Union National Bank before the transfers

could be traced. Jones took advantage of the time lag between the

issuance of money by the third party processors and the ultimate

approval of the charges by the credit card companies by quickly

removing those funds from the restaurant's account. After a two-day

trial, which involved extensive documentary evidence of Jones's

scheme, the jury returned a guilty verdict against Jones.

On appeal, Jones suggests that his convictions are not supported by

sufficient evidence. This court reviews a jury verdict for sufficiency

of the evidence by determining whether there is substantial evidence,

when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support

the verdict. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We

must consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the

government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts

proven to those sought to be established. See United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). "[A]n appellate court's

reversal of a conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence should be

`confined to cases where the prosecution's failure is clear.'" United

States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984) (quoting Burks v.

 2
United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978)). During this inquiry, this court

neither weighs evidence nor reviews witness credibility. See United

States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).

The central thrust of Jones's argument with respect to each of the

counts is that there were no eyewitnesses to Jones's overcharging of

personal credit cards or issuing charges against his own card. Notwithstanding the absence of eyewitness evidence in this regard, the

Government's reliance on documentary evidence to establish much of

the scheme, and the remaining possibility that someone else could

have actually keyed in the credit cards as part of the scheme, the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Jones's conviction. See United

States v. Jackson, 863 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th Cir. 1989) (finding circumstantial evidence should be treated no differently than direct evidence and may be sufficient to support a guilty verdict even though

it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence). Jones's other suggestions of error with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence either misstate the elements of the offense, see

18 U.S.C. 1344(a), or invite us to revisit the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. See United States v. Lamarr , 75 F.3d 964, 973 (4th

Cir. 1996). We also have no difficulty concluding that the Government demonstrated that Jones's offense affected interstate commerce.

See United States v. Lee, 818 F.2d 302, 305 (4th Cir. 1987).

Finding no merit to this appeal, we affirm Jones's conviction and

sentence. 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

7