UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4529

ROBERT B. WILKINS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-95-520-A)

Submitted: November 25, 1997

Decided: January 21, 1998

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert B. Wilkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Andrew Spencer,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert B. Wilkins, Jr., was found guilty by a jury of five counts

of mail fraud and five counts of using an unauthorized access device

(credit card fraud). See 18 U.S.C. #8E8E # 1341, 1029(a)(2) (1994). Evidence at trial revealed that Wilkins had fraudulently applied for five

credit cards (from five different companies) using the name Kristine

Wolfe, obtained a duplicate card on each account in his name as

Wolfe's spouse (they were not married), and then made charges totaling $84,694.13. The district court sentenced him to eighteen months

of imprisonment. He appeals his conviction and sentence and alleges

that the district court erred because it: (1) denied his motions for mistrial, (2) allowed testimony from witnesses whose testimony allegedly conflicted with their grand jury and other pretrial testimony,

(3) made unspecified incorrect evidentiary rulings, and

(4) improperly calculated "loss" under USSG§ 2F1.1.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm his convictions and sentence.

We find no merit to Wilkins' first three issues. Even if we were to

find the prosecutor's comments made during closing arguments

improper, Wilkins cannot show that his substantial rights were prejudiced such that he was deprived of a fair trial. See United States v.

Curry, 993 F.2d 43, 45 (4th Cir. 1993). The comments were isolated,

did not mislead the jury, and the strength of the evidence supporting

Wilkins' guilt, in the absence of the remarks, was substantial. Id. at

45-46. Regarding his second and third issues, Wilkins has failed to

provide this court with any basis for his claims that the district court

allowed untruthful testimony and has also failed to specify which evidentiary rulings he alleges are erroneous. We note that the Government did provide defense counsel with Jencks Act and Brady materials2

_________________________________________________________________

1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 2F1.1 (1995).

2 See 18 U.S.C. § 3500(c) (1994) (Jencks Act requires the government

to provide, after direct examination of a prosecution witness, any statement by the witness in possession of the prosecution which relates to the

subject matter of the testimony); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

(requiring the Government to disclose exculpatory evidence prior to

trial).

 2
and that his trial counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

A district court's finding of amount of loss is generally a factual

question reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Chatterji, 46

F.3d 1336, 1340 (4th Cir. 1995). Each case is decided on its own

facts. See United States v. Mancuso, 42 F.3d 836, 849 (4th Cir. 1994).

The district court did not clearly err by determining that the intended

loss was in excess of $70,000 and therefore that his offense level

should be increased by six. See USSG § 2F1.1(b)(1)(G). The evidence

at the trial and sentencing hearing revealed that Wilkins fraudulently

applied for and obtained credit cards in Wolfe's name and then

charged over $84,000 on the cards. Based on the evidence before it,

the district court found that the intended loss was in excess of

$70,000. See Chatterji, 46 F.3d at 1340; USSG § 2F1.1 comment.

(n.7(b)(1)) ("where intended loss is greater than actual loss, the

intended loss is to be used"); § 2F1.1 comment. (n.8) ("[f]or purposes

of subsection (b)(1), the loss need not be determined with precision").

Accordingly, because we find no merit to Wilkins' claims on appeal,

we affirm his convictions and sentence.3 We also deny Wilkins'

motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for bail.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

3 Wilkins only objects to the district court's loss calculation of his sentence under USSG § 2F1.1(b).

 3