UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN DOE, I, a/k/a Reginald
Edwards Lovette, a/k/a Lawrence
                                                                No. 99-4831
Ige, a/k/a Lawrence Tunde Ige,
a/k/a Lawrene Joseph Olutunde Ige,
a/k/a Lawrence Isa, a/k/a Peter
Olarewaju,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CR-99-177)

Submitted: April 13, 2000

Decided: April 21, 2000

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John Doe, I, Appellant Pro Se. Alessandra DeBlasio, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Lawrence Tunde Ige, charged as John Doe, appeals his criminal
judgment convicting him of making a false statement in an applica-
tion for a passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 1542 (West Supp.
1999), and possessing a false identification document with the intent
to use the document to defraud the United States, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 1028(a)(4) (West Supp. 1999). On appeal, Ige assigns
error to the district court's denial of Ige's motion to admit "crucial
relevant evidence to establish a valid defense." Ige also objects to the
jury's failure to "take into consideration" the testimony of the Arling-
ton, Virginia, post office and Maryland Motor Vehicle Authority
(MMVA) employees. Ige also assigns error to the Government's
handwriting expert comparing the handwriting on the passport appli-
cation to an INS document written by Ige, and that he did not have
adequate time to review the handwriting exhibit before trial. Finally,
he alleges that the Government erred by listing his aliases on the
indictment and publishing it to the jury. Finding no error, we affirm.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making
the disputed evidentiary rulings. See United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d
991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1101 (1998). We do
not find any evidence that the jury failed to take into consideration the
testimony of the post office and MMVA employees, and we will not
disturb the credibility determinations of the jury on appeal. See
United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 1141 (1999). Finally, the inclusion of the aliases in
the indictment was relevant and permissible. See United States v.
Clark, 541 F.2d 1016, 1018 (4th Cir. 1976).

We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction. We deny Ige's
motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis as moot. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-

                     2
quately presented in the materials before the Court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                   3
