Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl E. DECKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-02
Citations: 470 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 11-5196
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl E. DECKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl E. DECKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-5196.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2012.
Decided: April 2, 2012.
Timothy Anderson, Anderson & Associates, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. McBride, United States Attorney, Jennifer Cantrell-Sutor, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carl E. Decker appeals the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's judgment of conviction after a bench trial finding Decker guilty of one count of driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2006), assimilating Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-266(h) (2009), and one count of depredation of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (2006). He was sentenced to three years' probation. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We have considered the claims raised in Decker's brief. Decker claims there was insufficient evidence to convict him of operating a motor vehicle under the influence. We find that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).
Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Decker's pro se motions to file supplemental briefs. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.