### The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2693

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Carole Kalagian, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 15, 1996 Filed: April 23, 1996

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ca role Kalagian appeals the district court's entry of judgment o n 1 her conviction for unauthorized use of access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2). We affirm.
I.
On Augus t 30, 1993, Kalagian began working as a licensed practica l nurse at Friendship V illage, a retirement center. At Friendship Village, elderl yresidents lived independently in their own apartments but coul d obtain as sistance from a centralized health station. If any of th e residents needed constant medical attention, the y were moved to Friendship Village's health center.

### -2- Kalagi an worked at one of the health stations at the facility . Accord ing to a log book kept at the health station, Kalagian went t o Henrietta Stallings' apartment twice on September 1, 1993, for the stated purpose of checking on Stallings' nausea. Kalagian went to Regina Vetter' s apartment on September 2, 1993, to retrieve Vett er's hearing aid. On that date, Vetter was conf ined to the health center. Soon after these visits, Kalagianbegan using Stallings' and Vetter's credit cards, charging more than $4,000 worth of merchandise. Kalagian also visited Helen Woodruff's apartment on December 7, 1993, for medical reasons. Shortly thereafter, Kalagiancharged approximately $5,000 worth of merchandise on Woodruff's credit card. Kalagian was charged with violating section 1029(a)(2), which makes it a crime to knowingly use an unauthorized credit card with intent t o defr aud. After a jury returned a guilty verdict, the district cour t sent enced Kalagian to thirty-seven months' imprisonment and two years ' supervised release. Kalagian raises the following issues on appeal: (1) a violation of her sixth amendment right to confront witnesses; (2 ) insufficiency of the evidence; and (3) an erroneous evidentiary ruling by the district court.
II. Kalagianfirst contends that her sixth amendment right to confron t witnesses was violated because the government di d not call the credit card account holders at trial. Kalagian raises this issue for the first time onappeal; thus, we review for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Because the confronta tion clause does not require the prosecution to call at trial all of the w itnesses against a defendant, see Cooper v. State of Cal ifornia , 386 U.S. 58, 62 n.2 (1967), we find this contention to b e meritless . See also United States v. Morgan , 757 F.2d 1074, 1076 (10t h Cir. 1985) (holding that defendant generally may not confront

### -3-

witness who provides no evidence against him at trial).
We also reject Kalagian's claim that the evidence was insufficien t to show that the use of the credit cards was unauthorized. Viewing th e evidence in the light most favorable to the government, United States v. Quintanilla , 25 F.3d 694, 699 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 45 7 (1994), we find there was ample, if indeed not overwhelming, evidence to support th e jury's verdict. The victims filed theft reports with th e police and the credit card companies. Stallings' daughter testified that her mother did not make the purchases and that s ome of the purchases, such as m aternity clothes, could not have been purchased for her mother' s benefi t. Moreover, Kalagian forged the victims' signatures rather tha n signing her own name on behalf of the account ho lders. She also continued to charge items on Woodruff's account after Woodruff had died. We have considered and find to be without merit Kalagian's cont ention that the district cou rt erred in admitting under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence of her prior conviction for credit card fraud. The conviction is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.