Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sofia Krait WINKLER, a/k/a Sofia Krait, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-17
Citations: 261 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 07-4416
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sofia Krait WINKLER, a/k/a Sofia Krait, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 619–619

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sofia Krait WINKLER, a/k/a Sofia Krait, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-4416.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 10, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 17, 2008.
James S. Ellenson, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Joseph E. DePadilla, Assistant United States Attorney, Matthew P. Kertz, Third Year Law Student, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sofia Krait Winkler was found guilty by a jury of Count 1, conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000), and Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, false statements related to naturalization or citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1015(a) (West Supp.2007). She was sentenced to twenty-five months of imprisonment. On appeal, Winkler argues that the district court erred in denying her request for a jury instruction on entrapment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We find no reversible error in the district court's refusal to issue the instruction. United States v. Phan, 121 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir.1997) (stating review standard). The record does not support Winkler's claim that she was induced to commit her crimes and that she had no previous predisposition to do so. See Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988); United States v. Sarihifard, 155 F.3d 301, 308 (4th Cir.1998). In particular, Winkler failed in her evidentiary burden to establish grounds for the affirmative defense, United States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29, 33 n. 8 (4th Cir.1995), and the evidence of her predisposition to commit the crimes was abundant. United States v. Sligh, 142 F.3d 761, 762-63 (4th Cir.1998).
Accordingly, we affirm her convictions. 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.