UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Vir- ginia, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). Evi- dence 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 total- ing $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 mis- trial, (2) allowed testimony from witnesses whose testimony alleg- edly 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 rea- sons 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 preju- diced such that he was deprived of a fair trial. See United States v. Curry,

(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.

. 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 evi- dentiary rulings he alleges are erroneous. We note that the Govern- ment did provide defense counsel with Jencks Act and Brady materials2 _________________________________________________________________ 1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 2F1.1 (1995). 2 See

(c) (1994) (Jencks Act requires the government to provide, after direct examination of a prosecution witness, any state- ment by the witness in possession of the prosecution which relates to the subject matter of the testimony); Brady v. Maryland,

(1963) (requiring the Government to disclose exculpatory evidence prior to trial).

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

A district court's finding of amount of loss is generally a factual question reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Chatterji,

(4th Cir. 1995). Each case is decided on its own facts. See United States v. Mancuso,

(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,

; 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 sen- tence under USSG § 2F1.1(b).

3