The HONORABLE CHARLES B. KORNMANN, United States District

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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 Wiedmer with five counts of converting

crops mortgaged to the Farmers Home Administration (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. Following

a jury trial, Wiedmer was convicted on two of the conversion counts and the

bankruptcy-fraud count. The district court sentenced Wiedmer to eight

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 support

Wiedmer's convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the government, and drawing from the facts all reasonable inferences in

the government's favor, we conclude the government presented sufficient

evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that Wiedmer

knowingly sold crops mortgaged to the FmHA--without the FmHA's knowledge

or consent--with intent to defraud the agency. See United States v.

Walcott, 61 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 the

bankruptcy-fraud conviction. In his bankruptcy proceeding, Wiedmer

declared under penalty of perjury that he had no existing crops, during a

time period when he was selling wheat in the name of a trust. Cf. United

States v. McCormick, 72 F.3d 1404, 1406 (9th Cir. 1995) (sufficient

circumstantial evidence existed from which jury could find fraudulent

intent required for bankruptcy-fraud conviction where defendant created

identity, opened bank account in that name, failed to list bank account and

name in petition, and signed declarations under penalty of perjury that

information was true and correct).

Counsel also argues that the district court erred in admitting at

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 Rule of Evidence 403, we review for abuse of discretion the

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 (8th

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 -- and thus was relevant to his

intent in subsequently disposing of crops that were the agency’s loan

collateral.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude there is no other

nonfrivolous issue. 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.