
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre ETTIENNE, a/k/a Dandre Paul Dawson, a/k/a Jason Williams, a/k/a Thomas Coleman, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4850.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 30, 2003.
    Decided June 6, 2003.
    
      Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Andre Ettienne was convicted on four counts of using false Social Security numbers to obtain driver’s licenses or permits from the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2000). The district court sentenced Ettienne to a twenty-seven-month prison term to be followed by three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay a $4850 fine and a $400 special assessment. Ettienne appeals his convictions and sentence. His counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising two issues, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. We grant Ettienne’s motion to file his pro se supplemental brief out of time. We affirm.

Counsel raises as a potential issue the sufficiency of the evidence. To prove a violation of § 408(a)(7)(B), the Government must establish that a defendant (1) falsely represented a number to be his own Social Security number; (2) with the intent to deceive; (3) for any purpose. See 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B); United States v. Sparks, 67 F.3d 1145, 1152 (4th Cir.1995). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the evidence was sufficient. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.2003) (citing United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc)). To the extent that Ettienne challenges the credibility of the Government’s witnesses, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses and “assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government.” United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Next, counsel raises as a potential issue the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2001). The district court found that Ettienne committed perjury during his trial. The court’s findings on this matter were sufficient as a matter of law to support the enhancement and were not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Jones, 308 F.3d 425, 428 n. 2 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1372, 155 L.Ed.2d 211 (2003); United States v. Stewart, 256 F.3d 231, 253 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1049, 122 S.Ct. 633, 151 L.Ed.2d 553 (2002).

As required' by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Ettienne’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.  