
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HUA FANG, a/k/a Hana Fang Tjossem, a/k/a Hwa Bang Fang, a/k/a Bang Hwa Fang, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-4544.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 19, 2014.
    Decided: May 23, 2014.
    John C. Gardner, Gardner & Mendoza, P.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for Appellant. Ryan K. Dickey, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for Ap-pellee.
    Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hua Fang appeals the district court’s judgment after the jury convicted her of attempted unlawful naturalization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) (2012) and false statement in a naturalization matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a) (2012). Fang’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Fang of the indicted charges. Fang was notified of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 197, 212 (4th Cir.2013) (citation and quotations omitted). 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. Id. We must uphold a jury verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support it. United States v. Al Sabahi, 719 F.3d 305, 311 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 464, 187 L.Ed.2d 311 (2013) (citation and quotations omitted). Substantial evidence is “evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Fang’s convictions.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in -writing, of his or her 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  