### The HONORABLE CHARLES B. KORNMANN, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the District of South Dakota.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1384

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Arnold G. Wiedmer, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 1997 Filed: May 22, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The government charged Arnold Wiedme r with five counts of converting crops mortgaged to the Farmers Home Administrati on (FmHA), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 658, and with one count of knowingly making a false oath and account in his bankruptcy case, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152. Followin g a jury trial, Wiedmer was convicted on two of the conversion counts and th e bankrup tcy-fraud count. The district court sentenced Wiedmer to eigh t 1 months imprisonment and three years supervised release, and he appeals
. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel has filed a brief raising alleged trial errors. We affirm.

### -2- Counsel first argues that the evidence was insufficient to suppor t Wiedmer's convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and drawing from the facts al l reasonable inferences in the government's favor, we conclude the government presented sufficien t evidenc e from which the jury reasonably could have found that Wiedme r knowingly sold crops mortgaged to the FmHA--without the FmHA's knowledge or c onsent--with intent to defraud the agency. See United States v
. Walcott , 6 1 F.3d 635, 638 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), cert . denied , 116 S. Ct. 953 (1996); United States v. French , 46 F.3d 710, 715 (8th Cir. 1995).

We likewise conclude the evidence was sufficient to support th e bankruptcy-fraud conviction. In his bankruptcy proceeding, Wiedme r declared under penalt y of perjury that he had no existing crops, during a time period when he w as selling wheat in the name of a trust. Cf. United States v. McCormick , 72 F.3d 1404, 1406 (9th Cir. 1995) (sufficien t circums tantial evidence existed from which jury could find fraudulen t inten t required for bankruptcy-fraud conviction where defendant create d identity, opened bank account in that name, failed to list bank account an d nam e in petition, and signed declarations under penalty of perjury tha t information was true and correct). Couns el also argues that the district court erred in admitting a t trial an article describing an alleged governmental conspiracy. A "district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to admit evidence at trial." Cummings v. Malone , 995 F.2d 817, 823 (8th Cir. 1993). Under Federal R ule of Evidence 403, we review for abuse of discretion th e district court’s weighing of the probative value of evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice. See Duncan v. Wells , 23 F.3d 1322, 1323-24 (8t h Cir. 1994). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in

### -3-

admitting the article . It was part of Wiedmer's FmHA loan file -- having accompanied a letter he sent to the agency -- an d thus was relevant to his intent in subsequently disposing of crops that were the agency’s loa n collateral. Having ca refully reviewed the record, we conclude there is no other nonfrivolous is sue. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.