UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GABRIEL ADEKUNLE AGEH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(8:05-cr-00217-AW)

Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Staff

Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,

United States Attorney, Gina L. Simms, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Adekunle Ageh was convicted by a jury of eight

counts: forgery, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1546(a) (West Supp. 2008) (Counts 1

and 3); fraud in connection with identification documents, 18

U.S.C.A. § 1028(a)(1), (c)(1) (West Supp. 2008) (Count 2);

possession of a false document-making implement, 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 1028(a)(5) (West Supp. 2008) (Count 4); possession of false

identification documents, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1028(a)(3), (c)(1), (c)(3)

(West Supp. 2008) (Count 5); Social Security fraud, 42 U.S.C.

§ 408(a)(7)(c) (West Supp. 2008) (Counts 6 and 7); and aggravated

identity theft, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1028A(a), (c)(11) (West Supp. 2008)

(Count 8). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no

meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issues:

(1) whether Ageh’s convictions are supported by sufficient

evidence, and (2) whether the district court committed reversible

error by denying Ageh’s request for an alternative jury

instruction. Ageh was notified of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but has failed to do so. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

First, viewing the evidence as required, we find that any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of

the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States,

315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,
- 3 -

862-63 (4th Cir. 1996). Second, we find no abuse of discretion in

the district court’s refusal to give Ageh’s proffered jury

instruction. United States v. Abbas, 74 F.3d 506, 513 (4th Cir.

1996).

We have examined the entire record in this case in

accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious

issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This 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