Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy L. WEDDLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-11
Citations: 60 F. App'x 502
Docket Number: No. 02-4617
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy L. WEDDLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy L. WEDDLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4617.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2003.
Decided April 11, 2003.
Nancy C. Dickenson, Lebanon, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Randy Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jimmy L. Weddle appeals his convictions for making false statements and misuse of Social Security numbers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2000), and 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(4), 408(a)(7)(B) (2000). On appeal, Weddle claims there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We have reviewed those portions of the transcript submitted to the court and conclude otherwise. Weddle's submission of multiple false Social Security numbers, his willful deception regarding his incarceration at the Russell County Jail, and his false statement regarding his status as a convicted felon are all indicative of his fraudulent intent, the essential element he claims is lacking in the Government's evidence. Accordingly, we conclude, there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find Weddle guilty of the charged offenses. See United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir.2002). We affirm the judgment of the district court.
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.